Re: Re: Automatic Object Storage To MySQL

Yanni Chiu wrote:
> William Harford wrote:
> > On of the core ideas of the project is to limit the amount of work a  
> > developer has to do. The deveolper should only have to be minimally  
> > aware of how the object is being stored. Think of it this way. The  
> > developer has already defined the class why should she have to define  
> > the way the class is stored. The library should be able to figure out  
> > how to store the object with out any input from the developer other  
> > than the class definition. While the library code would benefit by  
> > offloading some work onto the developer it's my position that the  
> > developer would not.
>
> I recently watched the Ruby on Rails movie, and AFAICT
> it seems to read the database each time the system runs,
> to generate the needed meta-data. So the question arises:
> which should be the canonical definition - the database
> or the code?

[Hi all - new user just exploring the options of Seaside<=>Databases]

IMHO the database is canonical or you might as well not use it. The 
whole point of a relational database is that it represents the structure 
of your data and defines any required constraints. If you're not going 
to do that, you might as well not have a RDBMS underneath your app.

To me ROE looks more promising (thanks Ari - you answered my first 
question without me asking it). I want something that lets me generate 
code from my database, not vice-versa. It looks like ROE can help me 
with that.

--
  Richard Huxton
  Archonet Ltd