Ajai Khattri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 11 Sep 2007,
Kenneth Downs wrote: > > > As you may guess, I'm no fan of ORM.
The main reason is what I just > > said above. OO code and
table-based data are two very different beasts > > with very different
natures. ORM tries to make one look like the > > other. Why would
anybody want to do this? > > For a couple of reasons: > > 1)
Dealing with SQL from an OOP programming language is not natural.That's a
personal opinion, not a system requirement.Hey, that's fine. My opinion
is that generating SQL is natural and easy, a little easier than generating
HTML. > > 2) Conceptual relationships are easier to deal with via
objects.What's a "conceptual relationship?" If you put your
data into tables, then the relationships between the tables are foreign
keys. That's easier to handle in set-based SQL, the language that was
designed to do it. > > 3) It gives you a layer of abstraction above
the database to the > degree that it doesn't matter what the underlying
database > actually is, you have a uniform interface always. Doesn't
matter > if you switch SQLlite to MySQL to Postgres - all looks the
same. > Actually you don't need ORM for that, you just need a generalized
set of commands, like "db_query" instead of "pg_query" and
"mysql_query".
_________________________________________________________
This mail sent using V-webmail - http://www.v-webmail.org
_______________________________________________
New York PHP Community Talk Mailing List
http://lists.nyphp.org/mailman/listinfo/talk
NYPHPCon 2006 Presentations Online
http://www.nyphpcon.com
Show Your Participation in New York PHP
http://www.nyphp.org/show_participation.php
