It depends on how you look at it, if ORM is object --> relational, then it's no misuse at all, you're using Transfer as an object factory to get your business objects and if they happen to have persistence integration well that's cool.
I'm glad I was wrong, FWIW, because this is cool. Sort of puts another nail in the coffin of the notion that Transfer requires King Database and puts the database before the object model. I'm going to try to write a sample application that goes thru the process of setting up a Transfer-based app without using a service layer at all, just real, behavior-laden domain objects... because there's no reason that Transfer can't take the place of the service layer and the persistence layer all at the same time. Should be interesting. Laterz, J On Nov 19, 2008, at 11:45 AM, Bob Silverberg wrote: > > I like this idea. I can see how some might see it as a misuse of the > ORM, but it seems like a very practical approach to me, and keeps > things consistent (i.e., all Business Objects are Transfer Objects). > > Thanks for sharing, > Bob > > On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 11:05 AM, John K. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> >> I didn't mean to make anyone go out and code this up for me to see if >> it worked, I was really just curious how others handled this problem. >> Thanks for trying it out though Chris! ... --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Before posting questions to the group please read: http://groups.google.com/group/transfer-dev/web/how-to-ask-support-questions-on-transfer You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transfer-dev" 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/transfer-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
