On 17/12/10 14:37, Paul Poulain wrote: > Le 17/12/2010 15:30, Colin Campbell a écrit : >> Most of those routines are far too large and unmaintainable, many read >> the same data repeatedly and all mix business logic and reading data. It >> would probably be good if the "things" they deal with were abstracted >> into proper objects that police their own destruction, it would also >> give you the chance to have a more guaranteed interface to e.g. Item so >> that we dont have to scatter validations about through the business >> logic. Its one of the attractions of an ORM that it does this for you >> but you don't need an ORM to do it. I think if you can abstract away >> some of the current complexity it gets easier keep things clean. > Hi Colin : so... who's first : the egg or the chicken ? (frenchism > suspected) > > Because an ORM can't be achieved without persistency (or we will get > awful response times...) > > I'm in favor of doing one step after the other, and ORM is the step #2, > after persistancy that is the #1. > IMO, if you disagree, pls argue & convince me. > Many people implement persistency by using an ORM but if you look at what I wrote I said we did not need an ORM to achieve this.
C. -- Colin Campbell Chief Software Engineer, PTFS Europe Limited Content Management and Library Solutions +44 (0) 845 557 5634 (phone) +44 (0) 7759 633626 (mobile) [email protected] skype: colin_campbell2 http://www.ptfs-europe.com _______________________________________________ Koha-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
