The basic ideas of datamapper are much better, though... Jules
On 06/01/2009, at 7:03 AM, Dan Kubb (dkubb) wrote: > >> But... Rails 3.0 would go with Active Record as default and hence it >> seems wise to go for the default. Plus....Active Record is more >> established with lots of reference material available, I think >> majority would opt for Active Record. >> >> I am aware that Rails 3.0 is modular and would be easy to work with >> DataMapper and other ORM's, but I would also like to know, how many >> Merbist here shares my opinion. It would be nice to go for opinion >> poll as well if required. >> >> What do core Merb Team think as well...? > > As the lead maintainer of DataMapper, I'm ok with ActiveRecord being > the default in Rails, for now ;) > > I think the Merb/Rails merger will be really good for DataMapper > though, as it will bring in alot of new people and help flesh out the > documentation and build up the reference material. I think it will > also help identify the edge cases, since I believe DM is better suited > to providing an ORM for legacy DBs, and providing access to non-RDBMS > storage engines. > > It's no secret that DM is less mature than AR. We never claimed > otherwise. AR has a 3 to 4 year head start, it is used in hundreds -- > if not thousands -- of production systems and has a development > community at least 10x larger than DM. > > However, I may be biased, but I do prefer DM's architecture. I like > that you can define properties in the model, and the use of the > IdentityMap as well as Strategic Eager Loading. I like that the > internals are storage engine agnostic (or nearly so, we still have a > couple of RDBMSisms that are being taken care of). DM embraces most > of Merb's coding conventions, so the internals are relatively clean > and getting even cleaner, we are working on documenting the public/ > semipublic/private API, and the specs are being rewritten to test the > API and not the implementation. > > We are working hard to make it so that by the time Rails 3 is released > the only reason to choose AR over DM will be personal preference. I > think it will be the same sort of situation as jQuery and Prototype. > Prototype is the default JavaScript library included with Rails, but > based on informal polls I've seen and people I've spoken with jQuery > is used by just as many developers if not more than Prototype. Both > libraries are excellent, relatively bug free, provide roughly the same > outcome (using different approaches) and are mature enough that the > only reason to choose one over the other is personal preference. > > Dan > (dkubb) > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "merb" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/merb?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
