[RFT] New web project

> On 11/9/06, Jason Johnson <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Jason Rogers wrote:
> > > Regarding the relational database approach: if you look at Rails you
> > > will notice that the RDBMS is almost completely obscured out of the
> > > application, leaving you to deal with objects only.  The fact that an
> > > RDBMS is on the backend probably has more to do with quick and easy
> > > adoption (most folks are familiar with the paradigm) than to the
> > > necessity of RDBMS over ODBMS.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Well ODBMS is mostly (if not completely) hierarchical, no?  I mean like
> > LDAP.  If that is the case then those two strategies are very
> > different.  There are things that are simple to model in a hierarchical
> > database that are hard, if even possible, in a relational database.  And
> > vice versa.
>
> I didn't mean to imply that the strategies weren't different.  I was
> speaking to the decision making process for using an RDBMS.  Rails
> could have be done with an ODBMS, but then adoption would have
> severely suffered because:
>
>     [1] most folks aren't used to it
>     [2] it's not as easy to port an existing application
>     [3] most folks don't have access to an ODBMS as readily as an
> RDBMS (MySQL, SqlLite, PostGres, etc.)
>     [4] other reasons.

>> I didn't mean to imply that the strategies weren't different.  I was
>> speaking to the decision making process for using an RDBMS.  Rails
>> could have be done with an ODBMS, but then adoption would have
>> severely suffered because:
>>
>>     [1] most folks aren't used to it
>>     [2] it's not as easy to port an existing application
>>     [3] most folks don't have access to an ODBMS as readily as an
>> RDBMS (MySQL, SqlLite, PostGres, etc.)
>>     [4] other reasons.
>
> So basically the same "arguments" that speaks for Java and static typing.

> 2006/11/10, Jason Rogers <[hidden email]>:
> > On 11/9/06, Jason Johnson <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > Jason Rogers wrote:
> > > > Regarding the relational database approach: if you look at Rails you
> > > > will notice that the RDBMS is almost completely obscured out of the
> > > > application, leaving you to deal with objects only.  The fact that an
> > > > RDBMS is on the backend probably has more to do with quick and easy
> > > > adoption (most folks are familiar with the paradigm) than to the
> > > > necessity of RDBMS over ODBMS.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Well ODBMS is mostly (if not completely) hierarchical, no?  I mean like
> > > LDAP.  If that is the case then those two strategies are very
> > > different.  There are things that are simple to model in a hierarchical
> > > database that are hard, if even possible, in a relational database.  And
> > > vice versa.
> >
> > I didn't mean to imply that the strategies weren't different.  I was
> > speaking to the decision making process for using an RDBMS.  Rails
> > could have be done with an ODBMS, but then adoption would have
> > severely suffered because:
> >
> >     [1] most folks aren't used to it
> >     [2] it's not as easy to port an existing application
> >     [3] most folks don't have access to an ODBMS as readily as an
> > RDBMS (MySQL, SqlLite, PostGres, etc.)
> >     [4] other reasons.
>
> So basically the same "arguments" that speaks for Java and static typing.
>
> And oh, if you think the persistence layer in rails is abstracted and
> you don't have to deal with it in the model code:
> http://www.firemoss.com/blog/index.cfm?mode=entry&entry=8F2D5D6A-3048-55C9-4315FAAD54617516
>
> Philippe
> _______________________________________________
> Seaside mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside
>