On Jun 2, 2010, at 5:36 PM, Kate Yoak wrote:
If perhaps you are looking to automate CRUD using Moose metadata,
several attempts have been made at this and IMO they all ended up
with too much compromise and coupling. You might want to take a
look at the Smalltalk Magritte project, they add a
>
> If perhaps you are looking to automate CRUD using Moose metadata, several
> attempts have been made at this and IMO they all ended up with too much
> compromise and coupling. You might want to take a look at the Smalltalk
> Magritte project, they add an additional layer on top of the pure o
On Jun 2, 2010, at 1:09 PM, Shawn H Corey wrote:
On 10-06-02 12:14 PM, Stevan Little wrote:
Primary key and foreign key are meaningless to Moose because that
is not
how objects connect to one another, that is how you imply
relationships
in a RDB. I think perhaps you're too stuck in RDB thin
On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 01:09:27PM -0400, Shawn H Corey wrote:
> On 10-06-02 12:14 PM, Stevan Little wrote:
>> Primary key and foreign key are meaningless to Moose because that is not
>> how objects connect to one another, that is how you imply relationships
>> in a RDB. I think perhaps you're too
Shawn H Corey wrote:
On 10-06-02 12:14 PM, Stevan Little wrote:
Primary key and foreign key are meaningless to Moose because that is not
how objects connect to one another, that is how you imply relationships
in a RDB. I think perhaps you're too stuck in RDB thinking, keys are
most certainly not
On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 10:24:12AM -0700, Darren Duncan wrote:
> Shawn H Corey wrote:
>> I want to thank all those who responded. Your comments have given me a
>> view of the state of the art as it currently exists.
>>
>> And from what I gather, it sucks. There is a lot of software that
>> sto
Shawn H Corey wrote:
I want to thank all those who responded. Your comments have given me a
view of the state of the art as it currently exists.
And from what I gather, it sucks. There is a lot of software that
stores objects in a RBD and they do a good job. The problem is that
while there
On 10-06-02 12:14 PM, Stevan Little wrote:
Primary key and foreign key are meaningless to Moose because that is not
how objects connect to one another, that is how you imply relationships
in a RDB. I think perhaps you're too stuck in RDB thinking, keys are
most certainly not a requirement for a d
On Jun 2, 2010, at 10:52 AM, Shawn H Corey wrote:
I want to thank all those who responded. Your comments have given
me a view of the state of the art as it currently exists.
And from what I gather, it sucks.
Wow, that is a strong statement that doesn't really match up with what
I know. B
I want to thank all those who responded. Your comments have given me a
view of the state of the art as it currently exists.
And from what I gather, it sucks. There is a lot of software that
stores objects in a RBD and they do a good job. The problem is that
while there the models for object
I understand what you're saying here. No further comments from me at this time.
-- Darren Duncan
Stevan Little wrote:
On May 30, 2010, at 6:07 PM, Darren Duncan wrote:
Stevan Little wrote:
It also does not deal well with polymorphism since the ID (the
object's identity) is essentially fixe
On May 30, 2010, at 6:07 PM, Darren Duncan wrote:
Stevan Little wrote:
It also does not deal well with polymorphism since the ID (the
object's identity) is essentially fixed to a table (usually mapped
to a class).
The ID (object identity) that I had in mind would be unique across
all o
Yuval Kogman wrote:
There's another implied argument, that a DB should be relational for the
sake of being relational, instead of due to some other reason.
If you're doing aggregation or relational queries then yes, a relational
database makes sense (unless OLAP makes more sense, but whatever ;-
Stevan Little wrote:
I think you misunderstand, KiokuDB is *not* just a JSON serialization
service, it breaks up the object graph on a per-instance basis and
stores each instance separately. It uses JSPON as a way to handle
references from one object to another.
I think perhaps you need to ta
There's another implied argument, that a DB should be relational for the
sake of being relational, instead of due to some other reason.
If you're doing aggregation or relational queries then yes, a relational
database makes sense (unless OLAP makes more sense, but whatever ;-)
However, in an OLTP
On May 30, 2010, at 2:34 AM, Darren Duncan wrote:
Stevan Little wrote:
On May 29, 2010, at 11:20 PM, Darren Duncan wrote:
2. Besides the ability to introspect or perform powerful searches
on your objects using SQL/etc, I see another big advantage of
using database storage without serializ
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 3:37 PM, Shawn H Corey wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is the a standard methodology for persistent objects in Moose using SQL?
Well, if you want to serialize objects as they are, you might want to
consider just using KiokuDB with the DBI backend [1]
--
Oliver Charles / aCiD2
1: htt
Stevan Little wrote:
On May 29, 2010, at 11:20 PM, Darren Duncan wrote:
2. Besides the ability to introspect or perform powerful searches on
your objects using SQL/etc, I see another big advantage of using
database storage without serialization as portability. You can have
applications writt
On May 29, 2010, at 11:20 PM, Darren Duncan wrote:
Stevan Little wrote:
The only drawback to KiokuDB is that since it stores the object
graph rather then trying to map the object to a set of SQL tables,
your data is not stored in a relational/tabular way and so not
(easily) queryable usin
On May 29, 2010, at 10:07 PM, Daniel Pittman wrote:
Stevan Little writes:
On May 29, 2010, at 10:37 AM, Shawn H Corey wrote:
Is the a standard methodology for persistent objects in Moose
using SQL?
I'm writing a small web spider and I want my sites to be persistent
objects.
Personally
Stevan Little wrote:
The only drawback to KiokuDB is that since it stores the object graph
rather then trying to map the object to a set of SQL tables, your data
is not stored in a relational/tabular way and so not (easily) queryable
using those tools. Of course this can also be seen as a benef
Stevan Little writes:
> On May 29, 2010, at 10:37 AM, Shawn H Corey wrote:
>
>> Is the a standard methodology for persistent objects in Moose using SQL?
>> I'm writing a small web spider and I want my sites to be persistent
>> objects.
>
> Personally I would recommend using KiokuDB. This is the m
On May 29, 2010, at 10:37 AM, Shawn H Corey wrote:
Hi,
Is the a standard methodology for persistent objects in Moose using
SQL? I'm writing a small web spider and I want my sites to be
persistent objects.
Personally I would recommend using KiokuDB. This is the most
straightforward way
Hi,
Is the a standard methodology for persistent objects in Moose using SQL?
I'm writing a small web spider and I want my sites to be persistent
objects. Two abilities would be useful:
1. Deferred loading: objects are not loaded unless they're needed.
2. Save on exit if dirty: no need
24 matches
Mail list logo
