I've always thought that since DBIx::Class Maps an Object-oritented data structure to a Relational database, it's an ORM :-) Another way of looking at it, if I want to persist my OO classes to disk, an ORM is one way of doing that. In a quick skim of Object–relational impedance mismatch, it seems to mostly describe issues that would affect code that accesses the same database both via an ORM and without an ORM - that can indeed be a giant pain. But in regards to your question, I'd ask the other way around: why wouldn't DBIx::Class be an ORM?
In reply to Re: Terminology: Is DBIx::Class an ORM?
by haukex
in thread Terminology: Is DBIx::Class an ORM?
by LanX
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |