From: rubyhacker@...
Date: 2005-10-28T04:57:04+09:00
Subject: Re: The "perfect" ORM?

George Moschovitis wrote:
> > So anyway, this is one of my highest priorities -- to
> > make an ORM (that works the way I like) to wrap
> > KirbyBase. (With additional code, it should/could wrap
> > any other db, of course.)
>
> FYI, the development release of Og includes a KirbyBase wrapper.

That is interesting.

> > Og is cool, but is even more intrusive.
>
> Why is Og intrusive? can you elaborate?

This is only my opinion.

I dislike putting the metadata for my objects into the objects
themselves.

As someone pointed out, if I "reopen" the class, it is a little
better, but I am still unconfortable this way.

In addition, my memory of Og is that it encourages thinking in
database terms (like "has_many") -- true or not?

What I want is:

1. To think in object (and persistence) terms, not database terms.
2. To specify the minimum information necessary in order to marshal
   each of my types.
3. To store the metadata separately from my classes/objects so as to
   minimize impact on them. (But probably not in a separate file.)

Does that make any sense?


Hal