On 04 Sep 2014, at 15:01, Esteban A. Maringolo <emaring...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2014-09-04 9:35 GMT-03:00 François Stephany <tulipe.mouta...@gmail.com>: >> We are tempted to give Glorp a try. >> >> We've loaded version 1.7 from the configuration browser and the simple >> things we've tested so far seem to work fine with the PostgresV2 driver. >> >> What is the relation between the glorp we have with the VW version? > > Outdated, according to Alan Knight in response to a bug I reported. > The truth is no one knows. not entirely true. we know that is outdated :) Now, our version was ported from (AFAIR) 7.1 and extended to allow our drivers. Probably next time best path of porting is to make a bridge between VW driver API and ours (but I didn’t estimated the amount of effort). > >> Are the two merged often? > > As I understand it they kind of forked, because even though GLORP has > its own multi-dialect layers, it still was "too VW/PGSQL". > The DBXTalk guys narrowed the gap, but still… something like that, yeah :P > >> Unfortunately, we don't have the manpower to maintain such >> a beast, are there many people using glorp in production? With PostgresV2? > > I am making a living out of two projects using GLORP+PostgresV2 since > almost a year. So me, and my company, depends on it. > > I'd join an community driven "ORM Task Force" for Pharo. IMHO merging > VW's and Pharo's version won't be an easy quest. > While debugging GLORP I learnt a few things about its internals, and I > think other users share the same learning process. > So I am willing to spend some time on this. :) cool :) Esteban > >> Do you use all the niceties (e.g., json type) from PostgreSQL? > > No, but the json and jsonb datatypes are of my interest, because it > could allow me to embed objects, and have a mixed ORM/NoSQL > persistence solution sharing a single, and reliable, (R)DBMS. > > Best regards, > > Esteban A. Maringolo >
