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

Marcin Tustin mm3 at zepler.net
Wed May 20 12:56:20 UTC 2009

Surely much of this code would need to be written anyway, in order to
unit test, and verify that the system is mapping properly with the

On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Michael Forster <mike at sharedlogic.ca> wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> seaside mailing list
> seaside at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside

More information about the seaside mailing list