[Seaside] How do you handle constraints on persisted collections?

[Michael Forster]

On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 2:44 AM, Pat Maddox <pat.maddox at gmail.com> wrote:
[...]

> Simple code that I feel is cleanly separated, and will be easy to
> change should the requirements get more complex.
>
> Thank you for the feedback everyone, it was very helpful.  I'm curious
> to hear any thoughts on my current solution.
>
> Pat

Hi Pat,

Time will tell, and I do not say that in a mean spirit.

My point is that you've taken the first, if small, step toward your
own Greenspun's Tenth applied to DBMS.  Choosing to implement your own
DBMS, you've avoid the ORM (well, Object-SQL Mapping) overhead -- and
that is a reasonable decision in many cases.  However, now, you're
having to implement just one of the many features that a SQL DBMS
provides.  At what point will the amount and complexity of that code
exceed the ORM code?  I'm not say that it will, and I'm not saying
that your approach will have been wrong if it does.  I'm just saying
that you should keep this in mind.  It's a pay-up-front vs.
pay-as-you-go tradeoff, and not the simple "dump relational, go
objects" decision that some would have you believe.

Best of luck,

Mike