2009/8/14 <[email protected]> > Esteban, > > I'm comenting this on *philosophical* grounds. > > I understand the efforts to have SqueakDBX and other ORM in Pharo are > motivated by Seaside and other "production" initiatives so, again, my food > for thought is more an intellectual contribution which I see as useful for > Pharo as project: > > I don't see Pharo *any time soon*® having all the toolset to be able to > compete in the CRUD¹ realm with more streamlined tools and besides, not > matter how much theoretical work has been done on ORM, the "impedance > mismatch" is still there, > Hi! I am agree with you about the "impedance mismatch". I think that if I am free to choose a persistence strategy I would use an OODB. However, if we are talking about real enterprise application (not a simple webpage) being able to choose the persistence strategy is practically impossible. We did a survey last year and the results were that most of the times you cannot choose. Of course, the client has a lot of reasons:
- The client already has a RDBMS - They had paid for it and have the license (sometimes) - They want a company's support. The only company here is Gemstone. - RDBMS has history and it is an standard - They have knowledge about it - Interaction with other system (even legazy systems) - They are afraid of using another persistence strategy - They want to use SQL - They have DBAs - The persistence is difficult to negotiate So. In my opinion, if Pharo wants to be used really as a platform for enterprise applications (competing to java, .NET, etc), it must have a good relational solution. Of course, when you are able to choose, you can go for another approach like OODB. Best, Mariano > a recent and practicall account of this (for Squeak) can be found in > > http://onsmalltalk.com/simple-image-based-persistence-in-squeak > > also, AIDA/Web has been able to run only storing thing in the image! See > > > http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.smalltalk/browse_thread/thread/d3ba3867767b2253/f7435102b7e35ebe?lnk=gst&q=+pure+smalltalk+e+commerce%2C+no+rdbms%2C+no+apache%2C+smalltak+%2Blinux&rnum=1#f7435102b7e35ebe > > Since we'll increase the educational efforts to spread Pharo, I think that > as technology we should to recover a bit of Smalltalk technology and be > first more Object Oriented and then see if ORM still is so needed. > > my 0.0199999.... > > -- > > Cesar Rabak > > [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Create,_read,_update_and_delete > Em 14/08/2009 16:14, *Esteban A. Maringolo < [email protected] >*escreveu: > > > My prototype is getting less proto, and I found out it doesn't have > complex relations, and the system is going to perform faster if I have > tables for most of it. > > What are the choices I have for doing ORM in Pharo? > > ¿Does GLORP work? ¿Any other options? > I don't have a strong preference for the RDBMS engine, it can be > anything (free), being it MySQL, PostgreSQL or Sql Server Express. > > Best regards, > > Esteban A. Maringolo > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project > > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
