Chris wrote: > I spent 2 years with AR. > After a month with DM, I prefer DM. > I find DM better since it combines migrations/schema into the model file - this is so handy to look at model functions and have the schema right there. Also the nice auto upgrade makes migrations easy.
> Sent from my iPhone > > On 5-Jan-09, at 7:51 PM, Julian Leviston <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> The basic ideas of datamapper are much better, though... >> >> Jules >> >> >> On 06/01/2009, at 7:03 AM, Dan Kubb (dkubb) wrote: >> >> >>>> But... Rails 3.0 would go with Active Record as default and hence it >>>> seems wise to go for the default. Plus....Active Record is more >>>> established with lots of reference material available, I think >>>> majority would opt for Active Record. >>>> >>>> I am aware that Rails 3.0 is modular and would be easy to work with >>>> DataMapper and other ORM's, but I would also like to know, how many >>>> Merbist here shares my opinion. It would be nice to go for opinion >>>> poll as well if required. >>>> >>>> What do core Merb Team think as well...? >>>> >>> As the lead maintainer of DataMapper, I'm ok with ActiveRecord being >>> the default in Rails, for now ;) >>> >>> I think the Merb/Rails merger will be really good for DataMapper >>> though, as it will bring in alot of new people and help flesh out the >>> documentation and build up the reference material. I think it will >>> also help identify the edge cases, since I believe DM is better >>> suited >>> to providing an ORM for legacy DBs, and providing access to non-RDBMS >>> storage engines. >>> >>> It's no secret that DM is less mature than AR. We never claimed >>> otherwise. AR has a 3 to 4 year head start, it is used in hundreds >>> -- >>> if not thousands -- of production systems and has a development >>> community at least 10x larger than DM. >>> >>> However, I may be biased, but I do prefer DM's architecture. I like >>> that you can define properties in the model, and the use of the >>> IdentityMap as well as Strategic Eager Loading. I like that the >>> internals are storage engine agnostic (or nearly so, we still have a >>> couple of RDBMSisms that are being taken care of). DM embraces most >>> of Merb's coding conventions, so the internals are relatively clean >>> and getting even cleaner, we are working on documenting the public/ >>> semipublic/private API, and the specs are being rewritten to test the >>> API and not the implementation. >>> >>> We are working hard to make it so that by the time Rails 3 is >>> released >>> the only reason to choose AR over DM will be personal preference. I >>> think it will be the same sort of situation as jQuery and Prototype. >>> Prototype is the default JavaScript library included with Rails, but >>> based on informal polls I've seen and people I've spoken with jQuery >>> is used by just as many developers if not more than Prototype. Both >>> libraries are excellent, relatively bug free, provide roughly the >>> same >>> outcome (using different approaches) and are mature enough that the >>> only reason to choose one over the other is personal preference. >>> >>> Dan >>> (dkubb) >>> >> > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "merb" 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/merb?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
