On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 11:05:44AM -0400, John Siracusa wrote: > > In the meantime, RDBO is a brilliantly well-written system and if you're > > with > > jcs in not seeing the point of the (functional-ish/set-arithmetic-ish > > resultset concept) and not wanting to be able to subclass to override at any > > level of the process, it's a very useful option. > > IME, it's not a matter of "not seeing the point" of a resultset approach, > but rather a preference for a particular API type. That is, it's a matter > of taste rather than one of ignorance.
Hmm. I think that's a semantic mismatch, that's basically what I meant. That you don't see the point for your purposes doesn't mean that you don't understand why others do for theirs. I still personally believe resultset chaining to be a lisp-vs-blub-ism, and find that the majority of people who try it find it addictive, but that could purely be a matter of my sample self-selecting. > > I usually tell people to examine both and choose whichever best suits their > > project - the experienced developers seem -usually- to end up going for > > "DBIx::Class by default, Rose::DB::Object when they need speed over > > features" > > but that's my personal experience from discussion with a few hundred perl > > developers, not a statement of intent/recommendation. > > Rose::DB::Object > > Although performance may attract people to RDBO initially, I think the > people who decide to stick with it do so for other reasons: they like the > API, it has some particular feature they want, etc. I've never taken a > survey, but that's my impression based on RDBO mailing list traffic and so > on. I can tell you that I'd personally keep using RDBO even if it was the > slowest ORM, but perhaps that's not too surprising ;) I tend to think in terms of conceptual mapping rather than in terms of API details, and I think I could fairly easily implement the DBIC API atop RDBO and vice versa (modulo the odd missing feature on either side), so I beg to disagree with your "they're too different" assertion. At the point at which I originally discussed it with you I'd have been happy to write a DBIC layer over RDBO if I'd been permitted to patch a resultset concept into the latter, but I got the impression you didn't want it at all; I'm glad to hear that you're planning to eventually add it to RDBO but at this stage we're a little late in the game for a merge to be viable. Never mind, maybe we can collaborate on a perl6 ORM when there's a production implementation of the language for us to code to :) -- Matt S Trout Need help with your Catalyst or DBIx::Class project? Technical Director Want a managed development or deployment platform? Shadowcat Systems Ltd. Contact mst (at) shadowcatsystems.co.uk for a quote http://chainsawblues.vox.com/ http://www.shadowcatsystems.co.uk/ _______________________________________________ List: Catalyst@lists.rawmode.org Listinfo: http://lists.rawmode.org/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@lists.rawmode.org/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/