I hardly "own" the Record :) ... as I stated with other occasions I'm
not a fan of ORM either :) ( I'm also not a fan of annotated POJO crap
which claim purity but they are polluted with annotations. )
I didn't follow too closely the couch DB implementation so I don't
have a formed opinion on it. I guess we can debate all day if active
records are right or not ... it's in many respects a matter of taste.
If one switched from a RDBMS to Couch DB or viceversa they'll probably
have bigger problems then changing CouchRecord to DBRecord or
viceversa. Personally I don't see a too big impediment in active
record's approach and I don't see it as an invation of the domain
model.
class Person extends CouchRecord[Person] {
//..
}
class Animal extends CouchRecord[Animal] {
}
could be replaced (at least in theory) with a "proxy" trait
(pseudocode cause I'm lazy now ...)
trait MyDomainRecord[A} extends CouchRecord[A]
class Person extends MyDomainRecord[Person] {
//..
}
class Animal extends MyDomainRecord[Animal] {
}
... thus have the CouchDB "invasion" in a single place.
The author says something like "The moment you define a domain
abstraction as being statically dependent on a persistence
implementation, you lose the ability to reuse it in other contexts.".
I disagree completly. I can think of a couple of options:
Option 1
class Person extends CouchRecord[Person] with PersonView {
//..
}
in my UI layer I can have:
def render (person: PersonView): NodeSeq = ...
Option 2
def render (person: Person): NodeSeq = ...
Option 3 ... there has to be one or more
so I'm able to pass a CouchDB record to other layers without
explicitly passing the persistence store information. So I don't see
much loss ...
Br's,
Marius
On 15 feb., 17:28, Timothy Perrett <[email protected]> wrote:
> Sounds like a good plan Ross - have you any specific suggestions about how
> best to untangle things?
>
> Marius - your thoughts as the own of Record?
>
> Cheers, Tim
>
> On 15 Feb 2010, at 15:03, Ross Mellgren wrote:
>
>
>
> > FWIW, I agree mostly completely, and when I was writing the integration I
> > didn't like the fact that I couldn't make one model object usable for both
> > Couch and an RDBMS (for example). I guess it could be made to support more
> > than one if the persistence-specific stuff was untangled from
> > MetaRecord/Record subclasses and made into mixable traits?
>
> > -Ross
>
> > On Feb 15, 2010, at 4:34 AM, Timothy Perrett wrote:
>
> >> Debasish just posted this:
>
> >>http://debasishg.blogspot.com/2010/02/why-i-dont-like-activerecord-fo...
>
> >> Interesting feedback especially regarding the current design of
> >> Record...
>
> >> Cheers, Tim
>
> >> --
> >> 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
> >> athttp://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en.
>
> > --
> > 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
> > athttp://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en.
--
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.
