On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 11:12, David Forslund wrote: > Not really, as most of these features are supported by some of the > available (open source) > mapping tools, so that you don't have to do this yourself and can maintain > DBMS portability. > Some of these features as being non-standard create problems of > portability, but most of them > are accommodated by Object-Relational mapping tools. �
Portability is a means to an end and not a goal in itself. PostgreSQL is free, runs on most known platforms from my handheld (Sharp Zaurus) to mainframes. Chosing PostgreSQL and using PostgreSQL specific features thus does not impose any undue restrictions on end users. Object relational mapping is computing intensive. Sometimes this doesn't matter, but when you already have native support by your backend for features you deem necessary, it would be unwise to abstract these features out into a middleware, where you just create new points of failure and dependency problems. Horst -- "On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament!], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." -- Charles Babbage
