- Original Message
From: John Karr brain...@brainbuz.org
The alternatives I've been able to discover are DBI and RoseDB.
Is there any
case (given why I've already stated I dislike DBIx) for RoseDB,
and are
there any other alternatives that work well with Catalyst that I have
Personally I think DBIx::Class is the biggest load of crock out there.
It's much slower, awkward to use, time consuming to learn, and as soon
as you try to do some complicated queries you'll end up dropping it
anyway. ORMs simply cannot work in the long run:-
Thanks Lyle and Ovid for your responses, both SQL::DB and Fey::SQL look like
saner approaches, and I will take them both for a test drive. I also liked
the article Lyle referenced.
-Original Message-
From: Lyle [mailto:webmas...@cosmicperl.com]
Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2010 9:36 AM
To:
On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 6:35 AM, Lyle webmas...@cosmicperl.com wrote:
Personally I think DBIx::Class is the biggest load of crock out there. It's
much slower, awkward to use, time consuming to learn, and as soon as you try
to do some complicated queries you'll end up dropping it anyway. ORMs
On Apr 17, 2010, at 7:59 AM, John Karr wrote:
Thanks Lyle and Ovid for your responses, both SQL::DB and Fey::SQL
look like
saner approaches, and I will take them both for a test drive. I also
liked
the article Lyle referenced.
-Original Message-
From: Lyle
On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 14:35:51 +0100, Lyle wrote:
It's much slower, awkward to use, time consuming to learn, and as soon
as you try to do some complicated queries you'll end up dropping it
anyway.
Ok, I'll bite: What system do you use instead of an object-relational mapper?
Best regards,
Adam Sjøgren wrote:
On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 14:35:51 +0100, Lyle wrote:
It's much slower, awkward to use, time consuming to learn, and as soon
as you try to do some complicated queries you'll end up dropping it
anyway.
Ok, I'll bite: What system do you use instead of an object-relational
On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 19:15:14 +0100, Lyle wrote:
Adam Sjøgren wrote:
Ok, I'll bite: What system do you use instead of an object-relational mapper?
At the moment I just use DBI directly.
[...]
Thanks for the answer.
It is always nice to know what people like when they express contempt
for
I'd say that rather than spending time studying SQL::DB, which I found
complicated and hard to tackle, you might as well invest the same time
and energy anyway in figuring out DBIx::Class.
On Sat, 2010-04-17 at 14:35 +0100, Lyle wrote:
Personally I think DBIx::Class is the biggest load of crock
From: Kiffin Gish kiffin.g...@planet.nl
I'd say that rather than spending time studying SQL::DB, which I found
complicated and hard to tackle, you might as well invest the same time
and energy anyway in figuring out DBIx::Class.
BTW, is there a comparison among the ORMs in Perl somewhere?
It
Adam Sjøgren wrote:
On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 19:15:14 +0100, Lyle wrote:
Adam Sjøgren wrote:
Ok, I'll bite: What system do you use instead of an object-relational mapper?
At the moment I just use DBI directly.
[...]
Thanks for the answer.
It is always nice to know what people like when they
Kiffin Gish wrote:
I'd say that rather than spending time studying SQL::DB, which I found
complicated and hard to tackle, you might as well invest the same time
and energy anyway in figuring out DBIx::Class.
TBH if I really found the need for the DB to match up to objects, then
I'd use an
I think there's a very important difference of approach, much as Template Tool
Kit and Template Declare, radically different approaches, that are both far
superior to the classic CGI Module.
Working in raw DBI is the opposite of the DRY principle which underlies having
a framework in the
On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 4:04 PM, John Karr brain...@brainbuz.org wrote:
I think there's a very important difference of approach, much as Template
Tool Kit and Template Declare, radically different approaches, that are both
far superior to the classic CGI Module.
Working in raw DBI is the
On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 4:35 PM, Octavian Rasnita orasn...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
From: John Karr brain...@brainbuz.org
Working in raw DBI is the opposite of the DRY principle which underlies
having a framework in the first place, so I am seeking an alternative.
Just as Catalyst uses MVC,
Hi,
From: John Karr brain...@brainbuz.org
Working in raw DBI is the opposite of the DRY principle which underlies
having a framework in the first place, so I am seeking an alternative.
Just as Catalyst uses MVC, DBIx chooses ORM, but that paradigm is not the
only way to be effective
On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 7:04 PM, John Karr brain...@brainbuz.org wrote:
In my own analysis the Time and Effort to learn DBIx is greater than the Time
wasted writing repetitious DBI code, the time I've already invested on DBIx
has shown that there is a better way than DBI, but for me it isn't
Octavian Rasnita wrote:
But in that case you probably shouldn't be interested in using
Template-Toolkit nor Catalyst, because they also have their overhead,
and the other higher level modules used for accessing the database
have their overhead also and the best solution would be DBI.
You've
On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 5:12 PM, Lyle webmas...@cosmicperl.com wrote:
Octavian Rasnita wrote:
But in that case you probably shouldn't be interested in using
Template-Toolkit nor Catalyst, because they also have their overhead, and
the other higher level modules used for accessing the database
J. Shirley wrote:
If your developers cost less than your servers, raw DBI is probably a
quite adequate solution. Glad someone is doing it, because I wouldn't
touch those jobs
All depends. If you're product is to go to hundreds of customers, then
the cost of them all having to buy high end
On Apr 17, 2010, at 7:31 PM, Lyle wrote:
J. Shirley wrote:
If your developers cost less than your servers, raw DBI is probably a
quite adequate solution. Glad someone is doing it, because I
wouldn't
touch those jobs
All depends. If you're product is to go to hundreds of customers,
then
On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 7:38 PM, Lyle webmas...@cosmicperl.com wrote:
TBH if I really found the need for the DB to match up to objects, then I'd
use an Object Database, not a Relational one. The only real argument for
using a relational one instead, in that situation, is the performance
22 matches
Mail list logo
