From: rubyhacker@...
Date: 2005-10-27T05:06:33+09:00
Subject: Re: The "perfect" ORM?


Bob Hutchison wrote:
>
> Do you want an ORM? or do you want a way to persist classes in a non-
> intrusive way? Be careful what you ask for :-)

Hshs... I really want the latter, but I am considering implementing
it using the former.  ;)

> I am putting the final touches on a project (<http://rubyforge.org/
> projects/xampl/>) that I've been working on for a while now. It has
> its roots in a Java tool that I've been working on since 1998 or so
> and that has been used in eight or nine quite large commercial
> products (500k to 2000k lines of code). There is a Common Lisp
> version as well. I am working through a small but relatively complex
> example (in Ruby) just to make sure I've not missed anything that
> Ruby needs (and a good thing I did too).

Great, I will look that over as soon as I find time.

> It is unobtrusive as long as you play along. Persistence is only one
> of the goals of the tool, it is also trying to provide a useful
> framework for projects that use it.

"Playing along" seems reasonable, for appropriate values of "playing
along." (Another fine tautology from Hal.)

Hmm, what would the framework do besides provide persistence?

> There is more information on my weblog in the ruby category <http://
> recursive.ca/hutch/index.php?cat=16>, a few additional articles in
> the xampl category talking about the Java or CL version, if you are
> curious. The articles mostly talk about xampl as an XML binding tool
> -- which it also does do.

XML! Back, thou fiend, back!  /me makes sign of cross

> Right now, xampl is targeted at new code. Fitting it into existing
> code can be done but requires some familiarity with the tool, and
> there is no guarantee that it would be all that useful in the end.
>

A lot fo things are like that. I hope to avoid a little of that if
I can.


Thanks,
Hal