[Seaside] [RFT] New web project
jacaetevha at gmail.com
Mon Nov 13 22:06:07 UTC 2006
Ouch ... point taken
On 11/11/06, Philippe Marschall <philippe.marschall at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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:
> >  most folks aren't used to it
> >  it's not as easy to port an existing application
> >  most folks don't have access to an ODBMS as readily as an
> > RDBMS (MySQL, SqlLite, PostGres, etc.)
> >  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:
> Seaside mailing list
> Seaside at lists.squeakfoundation.org
"Where there is no vision, the people perish..."
More information about the Seaside