Ok. Just wanted to be sure. Also, do you agree with the point Lukas Eder was making in his article "Stop Claiming that you’re Using a Schemaless Database"?
I tend to disagree on the "schema is a good thing that you always want to have" argument. He is ignoring the schema migration and code refactoring issues present with SQL. This blog post (also from MongoDB) makes the issue very, very clear. https://www.mongodb.com/blog/post/mongodb-vs-sql-day-1-2 <https://www.mongodb.com/blog/post/mongodb-vs-sql-day-1-2> I agree, on the other hand, with the fact that there always needs to be a schema. It is just a difference between the code determining the correctness of the schema or the database imposing schema, which has to be kept up-to-date with the code, which means "versioning" of schema, which becomes and additional hassle for agile development. The fact ORMs are built to make Objects match RDBMSs just goes to show the real issue and how controversial the discussion are about using ORMs. Everyone who argues about the usefulness of ORMs hasn't seen the light of storing and retrieving object state at will and what it means to the simplicity of programming. Scott -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OrientDB" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
