On 3/22/06, Doug Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Something that jump out are the point about the "record" convention (is it a > convention or is it just part of the API?) in Reactor. I doubt that you're > going to have much consistency between different ORM frameworks in their > approach to problem solving. This means that another ORM framework would > probably have it's own API and it's own set of issues.
Having worked with four of the ORM frameworks - and written them up in my Objects & Persistence talk (download it from my blog) - I can only agree with Doug here. Each framework exposes a different API, a different naming convention. I really don't think it is realistic to expect to be able to simply swap out one ORM for another. I do not think that changing the naming conventions in Reactor will help you here - the naming conventions will be different in each framework so you will still need to either write an adapter for each or modify your code. I think the Reactor naming convention is clear and appropriate - having multiple methods called getXyz() that return a record in one case and an iterator in another case would be a terrible idea. -- Sean A Corfield -- http://corfield.org/ Got frameworks? "If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive." -- Margaret Atwood -- Reactor for ColdFusion Mailing List -- [email protected] -- Archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/reactor%40doughughes.net/
