Hi,
I would like to collect a list of the solutions to link Pharo with
existing databases. I am interested in both relational and in object
databases.
Is there a list somewhere? If not and if you know/use/develop/ such a
solution, it would be great if we could put it together by collecting
Doru wrote:
>I would like to collect a list of the solutions to link
>Pharo with existing databases. I am interested in
>both relational and in object databases.
Something like http://www.seaside.st/documentation/persistence?
Stephan
___
Pharo-proj
http://code.google.com/p/pharo/wiki/PackagesTestedInPharo lists
SqueakDBX (and Glorp). If people have experience with other drivers
(like the dedicated Postgresql client [1]), it would be good to add it
there too.
Cheers,
Adrian
[1] http://www.squeaksource.com/PostgresV2.html
On Nov 26, 20
http://www.smallworks.com.ar
We have a lot products in productions using relationals
database. Sadly, we don't have webpages for all
products...we are programmers :)
Today, our strategy is use Glorp, with SqueakDBX.
(Postgres, MySql, Oracle and comming Soon MSSQL), when we don't use
the prevalenc
Excellent!
Diogenes it would be great if you could have a web page :)
Stef
On Nov 26, 2009, at 10:17 PM, Diogenes Moreira wrote:
> http://www.smallworks.com.ar
>
> We have a lot products in productions using relationals
> database. Sadly, we don't have webpages for all
> products...we are progr
in fact, we are working on a new page please be patient with us as ..
is the tipical situation, the good programmers make horrible
pages...please some graphics artist, help us :)
Regards.
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 6:45 PM, Stéphane Ducasse
wrote:
> Excellent!
> Diogenes it would be gr
Hi,
That sounds interesting indeed.
But, I was more talking about the projects for DB mapping, not the
application projects. In other words, what Pharo project are you using
and which version to work with what version of what database.
For example, you mentioned SqueakDBX. Which version? Is
A OK..
SqueakDbx http://www.SqueakDBX.org
with Glorp. http://www.glorp.org
which version live in the trunk is more fun. :)
Best Regards.
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 7:06 PM, Tudor Girba wrote:
> Hi,
>
> That sounds interesting indeed.
>
> But, I was more talking about the projects for DB ma
On Nov 26, 2009, at 11:38 PM, Diogenes Moreira wrote:
> A OK..
>
> SqueakDbx http://www.SqueakDBX.org
>
> with Glorp. http://www.glorp.org
>
> which version live in the trunk is more fun. :)
well.
I just got a discussion with doru that this is a pain to load the latest
version of someth
Ok.Doru: I will answer you as much as I know.
I think it is good your idea of having a webpage with all the answers of
your questions and even more. The seaside persistence page is ok, but two
things: 1) this is not only squeak/pharo but others dialects too, 2) Most
of those persistence strat
Thanks, Mariano.
Indeed, that is the kind of information I am looking for.
Cheers,
Doru
On 27 Nov 2009, at 00:23, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:
> Ok.Doru: I will answer you as much as I know.
>
> I think it is good your idea of having a webpage with all the
> answers of your questions and
We are using GOODS for a while now and it runs pretty well. I have
added it to the wikipage.
On 26 Nov 2009, at 17:39, Tudor Girba wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to collect a list of the solutions to link Pharo with
> existing databases. I am interested in both relational and in object
> databas
Glad to hear it :). Is it really faster than Magma in your experience?
Cheers,
Niko
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 11:11 AM, Johan Brichau
wrote:
> We are using GOODS for a while now and it runs pretty well. I have
> added it to the wikipage.
>
> On 26 Nov 2009, at 17:39, Tudor Girba wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>
In our experience, Magma took around 250ms, regardless if the query
had a large or small set of results.
Using GOODS, our application appears to run as fast as if the object
collections were kept in-image only (response times of 10ms for our
queries). Maybe it will run slower for very large o
Ah, great :).
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Johan Brichau
wrote:
> In our experience, Magma took around 250ms, regardless if the query
> had a large or small set of results.
> Using GOODS, our application appears to run as fast as if the object
> collections were kept in-image only (response t
15 matches
Mail list logo
