Lyle ha scritto:
Kiffin Gish wrote:
I'd say that rather than spending time studying SQL::DB, which I found
complicated and hard to tackle, you might as well invest the same time
and energy anyway in figuring out DBIx::Class.
TBH if I really found the need for the DB to match up to objects, then
I'd use an Object Database, not a Relational one. The only real argument
for using a relational one instead, in that situation, is the
performance benefits. When you want top performance from a relational
database, you won't be using an ORM anyway.
But the question is: do you need raw dbi performance all over the place
? Just as you can write some critical functions in assembly and wrap
them up in a C function or C++ class method, you can use an ORM to speed
up development and have easier code maintenance, and use dbi+raw sql
where you find a performance bottleneck.
Also, as someone has mentioned earlier in this thread, DBIC requires a
well-designed db schema, so in some way it prevents bad design decisions
at the "raw-sql" level, thus helping to acheive good performance right
from the start.
Lyle
_______________________________________________
List: [email protected]
Listinfo: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/catalyst
Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
Just my 2 (euro) cents.
--
Marcello Romani
_______________________________________________
List: [email protected]
Listinfo: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/catalyst
Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
