[Seaside] [RFT] New web project

Philippe Marschall philippe.marschall at gmail.com
Sat Nov 11 09:39:19 UTC 2006

2006/11/10, Jason Rogers <jacaetevha at gmail.com>:
> On 11/9/06, Jason Johnson <jbjohns at libsource.com> wrote:
> > Jason Rogers wrote:
> > > Regarding the relational database approach: if you look at Rails you
> > > will notice that the RDBMS is almost completely obscured out of the
> > > application, leaving you to deal with objects only.  The fact that an
> > > RDBMS is on the backend probably has more to do with quick and easy
> > > adoption (most folks are familiar with the paradigm) than to the
> > > necessity of RDBMS over ODBMS.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Well ODBMS is mostly (if not completely) hierarchical, no?  I mean like
> > LDAP.  If that is the case then those two strategies are very
> > different.  There are things that are simple to model in a hierarchical
> > database that are hard, if even possible, in a relational database.  And
> > vice versa.
> I didn't mean to imply that the strategies weren't different.  I was
> speaking to the decision making process for using an RDBMS.  Rails
> could have be done with an ODBMS, but then adoption would have
> severely suffered because:
>     [1] most folks aren't used to it
>     [2] it's not as easy to port an existing application
>     [3] most folks don't have access to an ODBMS as readily as an
> RDBMS (MySQL, SqlLite, PostGres, etc.)
>     [4] other reasons.

So basically the same "arguments" that speaks for Java and static typing.

And oh, if you think the persistence layer in rails is abstracted and
you don't have to deal with it in the model code:


More information about the Seaside mailing list