Re: ORMs comparisons/complaints.

From:

Daniel Pitts <newsgroup.nospam@virtualinfinity.net>

Newsgroups:

comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.lang.php

Date:

Thu, 02 Jan 2014 09:36:18 -0800

Message-ID:

<mshxu.172505$Uv.65753@fx30.iad>

On 1/2/14 3:36 AM, Silvio wrote:

On 01/02/2014 04:19 AM, Arne Vajh?j wrote:

On 12/30/2013 8:38 AM, Silvio wrote:

On 12/30/2013 05:27 AM, Arne Vajh?j wrote:

On 12/23/2013 7:25 AM, Silvio wrote:
Most places they are actually able to get ORM working.

I am not quite sure that I can follow you.

If you want OO for the code and you want the relational database,
then you must do a mapping between the two.

You can either hand write a lot of code or use an ORM.

Typical using an ORM is faster because it means less code.

You may not be able to use ORM 100%, but then use it 90% and
hand write code for the remaining 10%.

ORMs are good at what they where invented for: serializing an object and
resurrecting it at a later point in time.

Storing objects in a relational database via ORM is very different
from serialization (for non-trivial usage).

A serialization stores everything in a sequential stream of data.

Storing objects in a relational database via ORM store the stuff
not already stored in different tables.

Using a document store have some similarities with serialization.

I meant serialization in the more general sense. I am not talking about
Object(In/Out)putStream but about saving the exact state of an instance
to some addressable storage with the main purpose of restoring its state
later.

Serialization literally means to put an object into a serial form. I
think you're trying to use it to mean something close to marshalling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshalling_(computer_science)

Just a thought.