[Pdx-pm] (OT) SQL style question
david at kineticode.com
Thu Jan 13 16:32:49 PST 2005
On Jan 13, 2005, at 4:01 PM, Kyle Dawkins wrote:
> Well, here's where I am still not quite getting you... if you are
> creating an abstraction, then store the meta-information in your O-R
> model, not in the DB column names... if your abstraction needs to know
> that columns A, B and C come from table X and columns D and E come
> from table Y, then why wouldn't you store that in your model? I don't
> quite understand why you need to derive that information from the DB
> schema... especially since you want to support different DBs, which
> will almost certainly have different naming conventions. You should
> move it up into a mapping system, and perform all reads through that
> mapping system.
It's more to be self-documenting, but as I said, the O-R mapper needs
to know where to look, and the more opaque things are, the better.
> Good good... definitely the right idea. But if you haven't already
> started a higher-level model of your underlying DB schema, now is the
> time. It will save you tons of grief and prevent you needing to
> answer the question you posed to this list because the whole issue
> becomes moot; all column names become irrelevant (which doesn't mean
> you shouldn't name them consistently, just that the format you use is
> not relevant to your code).
It's not relevant, it just makes it easier or more difficult to write
the O-R mapper or to diagnose issues when you look at the database
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 2369 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.pm.org/pipermail/pdx-pm-list/attachments/20050113/b34d6b6c/smime.bin
More information about the Pdx-pm-list