"Adam Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > That is a blessing/curse of working with a relational database. No > matter how much you try to abstract away SQL, past a certain > complexitly level you will have to use it. I doubt that there is an ORM > system available today that can handle complicated queries as well as a > human. Usually I view encounters with the object-relational disconnect > as an opportunity to learn more about SQL, and a way to legitimately > let myself play the optimization game for a while. Obviously if you > look at it as nothing but a burden it will always be one.
But with more powerful databases you can do these optimizations outside of your application code and inside the database itself. Using views, triggers, stored procedures, etc. is really a blessing on handling complex queries and dependent actions. For example, SQLObject requiring that every "class" (mapped from a table) be "read/write" makes it hard to work with views. If it had a "read-only" option then we'd be able to easily create classes for views that don't return a unique ID. With those we'd be able to access functions (or even directly map functions to classes, who knows...), benefiting from a lot of the more powerful features of an RDBMS database. Of course, using the database just as a "spreadsheet" to store data isn't bringing much of what a RDBMS can do. -- Jorge Godoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TurboGears" 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/turbogears -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
