On Oct 27, 2008, at 8:19 PM, Ted Gifford wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:49 PM, Noah Kantrowitz > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> And for a) and b), code generation provides a single template to >>> maintain that code in. >> >> And the point was that template isn't needed because writing it >> each time is >> fine. > > Agreed and disagreed. The line is somewhere between "I don't write > perfect code the first time" and "there's only ten places I need to > change." When > - the code is similar enough to form a template, and > - OO techniques (or other techniques) won't work or aren't > appropriate, and > - there's just a lot of domain to cover, > code generation seems like a net positive for me. > > I just looked at the Trac db diagram. I'd call it a smallish domain so > I guess I can stop talking hypothetically. I see your point(s).
Indeed, we very purposefully keep it "human friendly", meaning not lots of generic interconnected tables and such. Really the only complex system with the three ticket-related tables, but thats still pretty minimal. I'm not saying ORMs don't have value, just that the benefit to Trac isn't worth the downsides. --Noah --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Trac Development" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/trac-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
