From: rubyhacker@...
Date: 2005-10-27T04:07:04+09:00
Subject: Re: The "perfect" ORM?


Lyndon Samson wrote:
> Ideally you'd be more generic than an ORM.

True, but I'd want to walk before I run, so to speak.

> 1.Have some method of querying them ( and implicit in this is some
> concept of unique ID/PK ).
> 2.Have some method of storing/retrieving them.
> 3.Have some form of collection which can contain the full object set
> or a subset.

That's a good analysis.

> You could go overboard by being very abstract for 1&2 which would
> allow you to utilise the storage engines query facility ( map to SQL
> for example), or very low-level rubyesque ( blocks for filters on
> properties etc ).

Mmm, again I wouldn't get too fancy in the early iterations.

> I don't think you should assume a RDBMS as the persistence mechanism.

Maybe not, but I'd want to start with some kind of backend that already

worked, as opposed to creating both a backend and a frontend.

> Also, db4o is worth looking at, it uses QBE.

I've never heard of it, but I will Google.


Thanks,
Hal