mla wrote: > Christopher H. Laco wrote: >> mla wrote: >>> Perrin Harkins wrote: >>>> On 5/22/07, Adam Bartosik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>> What I found missing in DBIx::Class is AR method find_by_sql(sql). >>>> Did you ask about it on the mailing list? Nearly all of the Perl ORMs >>>> have support for direct SQL. I don't know DBIx::Class, but >>>> "search_literal" sounds like what you want. >>>> >>>> I doubt there's anything worth porting in ActiveRecord that one of the >>>> many Perl options (DBIx::Class, Rose::DB::Object, Class::DBI, Tangram, >>>> Alzabo) doesn't provide. >>> If I may ask, Perrin, what do you use? >>> >>> Maurice >> >> I'm one of those odd birds that's used CDBI, DBIC and RDBO. >> I've converted from CDBI to DBIC and also written an RDBO layer for a >> project. >> >> /CDBI smart ass comments deleted/ :-) >> >> They all have their quirks. DBIC does a great job of getting out of your >> way. If there's an option, chances are you can set it at the class >> and/or object instance level, allowing fair amounts of evil to be >> accomplished. :-) >> >> RDBO tickles my fancy if I'm really into triggers at the various stages >> of data usage. What I really really missed from DBIC when writing RDBO >> was deploy(). The ability to just kick out a db schema into a DB from a >> DBIC schema totally rocks. > > Thanks for sharing your experiences. Other than the the deploy() stuff, > any other criticisms of RDBO? Now that I'm looking at it again, I'm > liking the design very much. > > I found this thread that compared some of the differences (might be > outdated now): > > http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/catalyst/users/3095 > > What would cause you to *not* use RDBO on a new project? > > Maurice
Well, to be fair to RDBO, I'm just not as familiar with it as I am with DBIC. When I was doing the storage layer for RDBO, what I missed (aside from deploy) was the *_related methods and the fact that resultsets are chainable. DBIC appears to take the approach that given object A, I can always get to related object B through object A accessors, helpers, *_related etc. RDBO seemed to tale take the opposite approach. Instead of working from one object to another, you went through *Manager classes when odd things are called for. Managers...ResultSets.... There's been a lot of traffic on RDBO lately polishing helper methods for relations and other such stuff.... Really, they're both great ORMS. I just prefer DBIC. Some prefer RDBO. Both are powerful. Just don't use CDBI. :-P (Sorry, couldn't resist). Repeat after me: Thou Shalt Never Create A CDBI Storage Layer For Handel. :-) -=Chris
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ List: [email protected] Listinfo: http://lists.rawmode.org/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
