Aaron Watters <aaron.watt...@gmail.com> writes: > On Oct 16, 10:35 am, mario ruggier <mario.rugg...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Oct 5, 4:25 pm, Aaron Watters <aaron.watt...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > Occasionally I fantasize about making a non-trivial change >> > to one of these programs, but I strongly resist going further >> > than that because the ORM meatgrinder makes it somewhere >> > between extremely unpleasant and impossible to make any >> > non-trivial changes to a non-trivial program, especially after >> > it has been populated with data. >> >> Object-relational mappers are like putting lipstick on a >> pig:http://gizmoweblog.blogspot.com/2006/10/putting-lipstick-on-pig.html >> >> m ;-) > > Cute, but wrong. Using ORMs is better than using "Object databases". > > In my case I use Python to un**** data created by java/hibernate. > If I was using a java based "object database" I would be simply stuck. > At least if you use an ORM you have a way to access the information > without writing a program in the programming language that the > ORM was defined in. Anyway, thanks for all the great comments on > this thread from all you Sarcopterygii and Haplorrhini out there.
Data persistence isn't a "one-size fits all" problem. It really depends on the needs of the system. Object databases solve the problem of storing complex object graphs, deeply nested data structures, and serializing language-specific objects like continuations or what-have-you (but I think that last one is yet unsolved). We all know what RDBMS' are good for. Neither is perfect for solving every data persistence situation. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list