On Aug 10, 9:51 am, Alexey Zinger <[email protected]> wrote: > I think the exercise in generic ORM frameworks is largely a failure at this > point.
I hate ORM pretty much with a passion on most days, and yet I still hesitate to call it a failure. In fact, I would go so far as to say that for the vast majority of small sites out there, I must admit that they solve the problem more directly than people give them credit for. < It's important to make sure the engineer > listens to the scientist, but sometimes we have to let the engineer do his or > her thing. I find that with persistence solutions, it is all too easy to get > into the trap of trying to distance yourself from the relational algebra for > very subjective reasons only to pay a price for it later. This thought may or > may not have a bearing in the overall language discussion in this thread. Now imagine if you could stay close to the relational algebra aspect of the database, without having to lose type safety. I again promote Squeryl. -josh -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" 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/javaposse?hl=en.
