Re: DB persistence framework for Perl Classes

First of all, thanks for all your replies.

Folks, don't be scared about new things, this is just a research work, and before release it I'm showing it to you.

I receaved a lot of replies saying that X and Y already does this, etc... Well, please, show me with some sample code how to do this in Perl with already know modules. Maybe I can port some resources from here to there and have things working over components with more support.

Graciliano M. P.
"Creativity is the expression of the liberty".

Comment on Re: DB persistence framework for Perl Classes

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: DB persistence framework for Perl Classes by perrin (Chancellor) on Oct 18, 2004 at 03:15 UTC
There really are quite a few modules now that do this sort of load/modify/save persistent objects stuff, the best known being Class::DBI and Tangram. Most of them show enough code in the synopsis that you should be able to see that they do these same things. Yours seems to create tables based on a class declaration. Tangram, XML::Comma, and maybe some others do that, but Class::DBI doesn't. It could be an interesting add-on for Class::DBI. Other than that, I'd say the most significant differences are the HPLOO syntax (neat experiment, but I wouldn't use it on my projects because it isn't really Perl and I would worry about other people understanding my code), and the features that other projects have which this one doesn't (triggers, constraints, ways to remap existing databases to accessors with different names, ways to use direct SQL, relationships between classes, etc.). There's nothing terribly wrong about your system, but I can't see much reason to recommend it right now when other systems have so much to offer.	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^2: DB persistence framework for Perl Classes
by perrin (Chancellor) on Oct 18, 2004 at 03:15 UTC

Yours seems to create tables based on a class declaration. Tangram, XML::Comma, and maybe some others do that, but Class::DBI doesn't. It could be an interesting add-on for Class::DBI.

Other than that, I'd say the most significant differences are the HPLOO syntax (neat experiment, but I wouldn't use it on my projects because it isn't really Perl and I would worry about other people understanding my code), and the features that other projects have which this one doesn't (triggers, constraints, ways to remap existing databases to accessors with different names, ways to use direct SQL, relationships between classes, etc.).

There's nothing terribly wrong about your system, but I can't see much reason to recommend it right now when other systems have so much to offer.

[reply]