From: rubyhacker@...
Date: 2005-10-29T06:57:05+09:00
Subject: Re: The "perfect" ORM?

George Moschovitis wrote:
> > I dislike putting the metadata for my objects into the objects
> > themselves.
>
> The metadata is stored in the object class not the actual instances.

Yes, I realize that.

> > In addition, my memory of Og is that it encourages thinking in
> > database terms (like "has_many") -- true or not?
>
> I dont think that has many is a database term, it just decribes object
> relations amd allows Og to automagiaclly generate some useful methods.
> This is an abstraction.

I think it was originally a database term which then found its way into
things like UML. In classic (non-UML) discussions of OOP, I have never
seen these terms.

> I think, using Og you almost forget that you are using a database. In
> fact you dont need an RDBMS store.

I like Og, it just feels verbose to me.

But I am the type who would rather do

  arr.mapf(:downcase)

instead of

  arr.map {|x| x.downcase }

And I feel that with Og, I am coupling my classes to the persistence
mechanism. Rather than "teaching my objects to persist" I would like
to give information to a persistence framework, and then just pass in
pristine objects (undecorated, unannotated, no tattoos or bumper
stickers).

> > 2. To specify the minimum information necessary in order to marshal
> >    each of my types.
>
> Og supports this.
>
> > 3. To store the metadata separately from my classes/objects so as to
> >    minimize impact on them. (But probably not in a separate file.)
>
> You can do this in the latest version.

OK, I didn't know that at all. :)

> Og is constantly evolving stay tunned for even better abstractions.
> Even better you can help us with suggestions and/or patches. Join the
> mailing list ;-)

I will try first to produce something of my own that I like. If I fail,
then Og will be my favorite framework.  ;)  And then I suppose I would
join the list and so on.


Thanks,
Hal