Re: [Objectbridge-developers] [Fwd: [objectbridge - Open Discussion] New repository.xml/dtd proposal.]

[Dirk O. <di...@xa...>]

Lasse Lindgård schrieb:
> 
> Something about this strikes me as beeing wrong - or at least
> questionable.
> 
> To me a persistence framework must be easy to work with, transperent and
> flexible in that order.

To me a persistence framework must be flexible, transparent and easy to
work with, in that order. So there are obviously different design
expectations :-)

> It is good to have the flexibility that the mapping files allows. But I
> am wondering if the usecase in 99% of the cases is that you just want
> the database names to be the same as the ones in the fields.

If you have to take care of DBMS specialities, like me (using FrontBase)
you will definitely want to have different column names than ivar names.

> To do that the table and the class mappings can't go in two different
> mappings. That scheme also seems to be hard to maintain - you'd have to
> remember making changes two different places.

This one I must have overlooked on the original posting. I totally agree
with you that maintaining mapping info in two places is definitely a bad idea.

-dirk