I've seen the following design a few times, and it's my favourite:
+------+ +------+ +------+
| App. | | App. | | App. | ....
+------+ +------+ +------+
+----------------------------+
| Shared application library |
+----------------------------+
+----------------------------+
| Database Interface Library |
+----------------------------+
Application
------------------------------------------------------------
Database
+--------------+ +--------------+
| Stored Proc. | | Stored Proc. | ....
+--------------+ +--------------+
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+
| Table | | Table | | Table | ....
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+
Each layer only talks to the layers directly above or below it. Perhaps overkill for a simple web application, and maybe not suitable for an agile environment, but the application not knowing anything about the table structure gives more freedom than one initially would think. In reply to Re: Maybe database tables aren't such great "objects," after all ...
by JavaFan
in thread Maybe database tables aren't such great "objects," after all ...
by locked_user sundialsvc4
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |