ORM comparison suggestion (was Re: [CDBI] Class::DBI vs DBIx::Class)

Matt S Trout dbix-class at trout.me.uk
Wed Mar 1 13:21:11 GMT 2006

On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 09:59:39AM +0000, Tim Bunce wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 12:56:27AM -0600, Peter Speltz wrote:
> > On 2/28/06, Matt S Trout <dbix-class at trout.me.uk> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 01:20:34PM +0000, William Ross wrote:
> > 
> > > Sounds like fun, except suddenly it's a web framework competition as well.
> > > Which somewhat misses the point.
> > 
> > I dont think so. How a framework uses / can use an ORM is quite
> > relevant. Is there a good bit of code written for you already -- a
> > nifty base class for your ORM ?  How can you use your ORM with this
> > framework?  In Maypole, if you dont want to use a Class::DBI type ORM 
> > you have some work to do before you can use Maypole.  So i say what
> > frameworks do with ORMs is relevant to ORM comparison.  Could be the
> > most relevant thing for me actually as when it comes down to it, most
> > or a good deal of my code is on the ORM level it seems.
> I see it as a relevant but separate issue.
> I'd like to see a comparison of ORM modules that is independent of what
> software is typically layered on top.

Right. Exactly my point.
> How easily/well certain web frameworks can use certain ORMs (or how
> closely tied they are) is certainly important information, but secondary.
> It belongs in an appendix.

Or a "Part II" or something - or maybe a sister comparisom on a
frameworks.perl.org site. But lets get the ORMs out the way first :)

     Matt S Trout       Offering custom development, consultancy and support
  Technical Director    contracts for Catalyst, DBIx::Class and BAST. Contact
Shadowcat Systems Ltd.  mst (at) shadowcatsystems.co.uk for more information

 + Help us build a better perl ORM: http://dbix-class.shadowcatsystems.co.uk/ +

More information about the ClassDBI mailing list