Rob, keep in mind that mapper (the approach you detail) is just one route, we have several options with lift. If you wanted a quick easy to use persistance mech, then Mapper is great. If you need something more enterprise / sophisticated where you can indeed seperate all the concerns a lot more - then just JPA. We have some great integration with JPA right now - its detailed in "the definitive guide to lift" book.
We also have Record, which is up and coming and will ultimately replace Mapper, and offer a lot more flexibility. Cheers, Tim On May 16, 5:10 pm, Rob H <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > I'm evaluating Scala and Lift for a new project and in reading through > the "Getting Started" guide, I noticed that the ORM approach in Lift > seems to involve weaving persistence code directly into the entity > classes (LongKeyedMapper, MappedLongForeignKey, etc.) and companion > objects. It's an interesting design choice because the trend in other > frameworks is toward an intentional separation of concerns: POJOs as > entities, DAOs for persistence. Spring and Seam with Hibernate/JPA > come to mind. Could someone explain the reasoning behind Lift's take? > I don't mean to pass judgment, just trying to understand the > motivation. > > Thanks. > -Rob --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lift" 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/liftweb?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
