On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Stefane Fermigier <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jul 25, 2011, at 10:44 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>> ...ORM is an anti pattern anyway ;-)
> ...since Sebastian and his team made a great deal of effort to create their
> own ORM ("Object-RDF mapping")
> in the first place, we'd better acknowledge instead that "object-something
> mappings" are useful tools,
> with (as all tools) some limitations that one needs to be aware of...
To me the main problem with SQL-to-object mappers is, as explained in
the seldo.com blog post, that if SQL is the wrong model for your data
(i.e. your data is not relational), mapping that to objects won't
help. I just creates more mess ;-)
I haven't looked closely at what Sebastian's team have implemented in
this case, but an object to RDF mapping might make perfect sense if
RDF is the right model for your project and the mapped objects help
you access it. No impedance mismatch in that case.
>
> ...even Jackrabbit has an object-something mapping, "object content mapping"
> as
> they call it: http://jackrabbit.apache.org/object-content-mapping.html...
Similar problem as with SQL-to-object mappers IMO, but in reverse: the
JCR model is IMO well suited to content manipulation (given the right
underlying content model), so wrapping that under a generic object
mapping layer makes no sense.
But this is getting very off-topic now (and sorry I was part of that
thread hijacking ;-)
-Bertrand
