On Aug 23, 2005, at 12:56 PM, Shane Hathaway wrote:

Gary Poster wrote:

In conclusion, the nebulous concept of "enterprise" applications on Zope does not have a clear cut decision for or against an O/R mapper such as Ape. The cost of O/R mappings is not inconsequential, and the advantages are not conclusive. I hope that large projects that the Zope community works on together can support both, and do not depend on or exclude their use. Florent makes some excellent observations, and solutions to the problems he identifies could be done at a number of layers in the code base. Meanwhile, switching entirely to an O/R back end over FileStorage or DirectoryStorage feels like a significant case of "throwing the baby out with the bath water".

I would use this argument to support the idea of transparent ZODB- based O/R mapping, which is what Ape does. With a transparent mapper, users can choose their own storage backend. The baby is the application code and the bath water is FileStorage/ DirectoryStorage. Ape keeps the baby 100% intact. ;-)

I strongly disagree that FileStorage/DirectoryStorage is "bath water"--something that has served its purpose, and is discardable. I agree that O/R mapping like Ape provides is a great solution for some cases (such as the one you listed, and there are others) and allows you to transparently replace back ends if it is (or becomes) necessary. It is an exciting idea and technology, and appropriate for some use cases.

FWIW, my concluding sentence would have been better written as "Meanwhile, deciding that a community project require an O/R back end over FileStorage or DirectoryStorage, as Florent argues, feels like a significant case of "throwing the baby out with the bath water"."

Zope3-dev mailing list
Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Reply via email to