My understanding of Object-relational mapping (ORM) is what I first encountered with Ruby on Rails ("Active Records").
A way to represent a data model in OOP where every table is a class, and every row an object of that class.
While very consistent on it's own, it's limiting the "relational" possibilities of SQL and is hard to integrate into an already existing non-ORM schema.
(edit: These problems are known as Object–relational impedance mismatch )
And I've always been under the impression that DBIx::Class doesn't have these limitations to restrict the possibilities of SQL.
Now a colleague is insisting that it is indeed an ORM because the CPAN-module says so
NAMEPlease enlighten me about the right use of terminology. :)DBIx::Class - Extensible and flexible object <-> relational mapper.
Cheers Rolf
(addicted to the Perl Programming Language :)
Wikisyntax for the Monastery
In reply to Terminology: Is DBIx::Class an ORM? by LanX
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |