-----Original Message----- > From: Sean Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sun 4/1/2007 2:06 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re: ORM with convention over configuration? On 4/1/07, Damien McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes, current thinking is that you won't *need* XML to write a Fusebox > 6 program but the XML-free default will take a slightly different > approach to Fusebox 4 / Fusebox 5
I look forward to it. > As far as the ORMs are concerned, Reactor really only needs XML to > tell it the relationships between tables - which is not something you > can reliably deduce from all databases. Unless you adopt a fairly > rigid naming convention perhaps. With a site redesign you can do that. That's what I'm looking at myself. Any idea on the Reactor website, anyone? > Rails does very well when you're designing a system from scratch and > can follow all of its default conventions - but it falls down when you > have to deal with a legacy database that does not follow those > conventions. It's only current limitation appears to be an inability to deal with tables with more than one primary key. What failings do you see? > I wonder how many of us get to design our databases from > scratch and how many of us have to build applications on top of > existing databases? I ask that myself every time I wonder why CF doens't have a database- agnostic layer built into CFQUERY. Damien ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Upgrade to Adobe ColdFusion MX7 The most significant release in over 10 years. Upgrade & see new features. http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion?sdid=RVJR Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/message.cfm/messageid:274284 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4
