On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 3:10:29 PM UTC-4, Carlos Cesar Caballero wrote: > > We could use object oriented modeling, >
Yes, but the question is, what exactly does that mean to you, and how would it improve things over the current DAL? Can you share a specific example, possibly including pseudo-code? Also, are you saying you want an ORM, or are you using "object oriented" more generically. If the latter, of course the DAL is already "object oriented" in that most of the API involves instantiating objects and calling methods on them. > we could save our objects directly to the database > What do you mean by "objects" here? Are you saying you want to save native Python objects to the database? If so, that would be a feature of the database rather than the abstraction layer interacting with it. Of course, web2py does allow you to store arbitrary objects to any database if they can be pickled or otherwise serialized and deserialized. Can you give an example, and maybe point to how some other favored abstraction layer handles it (e.g., SQLAlchemy)? > , we could declare non persistent variables in objects > Not sure what you mean by this. Is this something that can be handled via virtual fields or method fields? > , we could have a better code structure in our apps, we could maintain > large models easily > Can you be more specific? In web2py, nothing stops you from breaking up model code into multiple modules. > , we could reuse or extend model classes easily > This would be one benefit of an ORM approach, though you can already use table inheritance <http://web2py.com/books/default/chapter/29/06/the-database-abstraction-layer#Table-inheritance> with the DAL, and there are other methods of re-using code (e.g., table methods). > , we don't will need to worry about the class models files order > That has nothing to do with the DAL or "object oriented" programming -- that is related to the way web2py executes model files prior to the controller and would affect any type of data model definitions. If you don't want to worry about that, you can move table definitions to modules or use models sub-folders along with response.models_to_run. > , we could even load only the models that we need in controllers without > write modules... > How so? If using classes, the class declarations would still be executed if they were in a model file. Do you think this would be much more efficient than DAL lazy table declarations? Object oriented programming is not just use an object oriented programming > language, and sadly, with web2py is difficult follow the object oriented > paradigm when we develop applications Are you speaking generally, or just with regard to the DAL? Is it really that you want an ORM and to define database models as classes? If so, again, it would be helpful to understand specific examples of where you find that superior in some way to the DAL. Anthony -- Resources: - http://web2py.com - http://web2py.com/book (Documentation) - http://github.com/web2py/web2py (Source code) - https://code.google.com/p/web2py/issues/list (Report Issues) --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "web2py-users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to web2py+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
