Or... we could wait to see what happens with ActiveORM, which seems to have been stubbed out in one of wycats's branches ;)
Hopefully some common functionality can be defined, and we can all work together. On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 11:52 AM, David Masover <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 7:24 AM, Mislav Marohnić <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> So what you're suggesting is some thin layer on top of different ORMs that >> abstracts away things that are already similar between them? > > If I remember, that was always the plan for Merb, and is now the plan for > Rails. > >> Isn't that, like, an ORM for an ORM? > > Yes, it does sound ridiculous. It would be much better if we could settle on > a single ORM (maybe something with highly pluggable backends, like > DataMapper), or if we'd at least have multiple ORMs expose roughly the same > API. > > But neither of those are really possible, whereas it probably is possible to > add an ORM abstraction layer. Not something you'd use in an app, but it does > make sense for plugins. After all, there aren't that many differences in how > to use the major ones. > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" 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/rubyonrails-core?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
