Re: Proposal (?) for an ORM (Dorm)
| From: | baptiste dot autin at free dot fr | Date: | Wed, 02 Jul 2008 15:49:32 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal (?) for an ORM (Dorm) | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 | Groups: | php.pear.dev |
| Request: | Send a blank email to pear-dev+get-50343@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
> Yeah. I agree. This will hopefully be removed in version 2.0. However
> since 5.3 does not seem to get traits, it might be harder than it
> needs to be. But its definately something the Doctrine developers
> agree should be addressed.
If, as you suggest, Doctrine v2 "releases" the entity classes, and let them live
their own life, while keeping good performance, then Doctrine will become a
must-have.
The lack of separation between model concepts and database concepts is precisely
a flaw of Propel, IMO (but PEAR-DEV is surely not the place for a passionated
and endless discussion on that topic...)
Just by curiosity:
- I see there's a support for PDO. No one for MDB2 because of the 5.2.3+
requirement?
- What's in 5.2.3 that makes it so necessary for Doctrine to work?
> I am converted. I cannot use it in all my projects however, since
> Doctrine requires 5.2.3 and many of my clients are stuck on RHEL's
> 5.1.6 version.
Ooops, I had not seen you were among the Doctrine team. :)
So, knowing that now, yes, I can imagine that you are a converted!
Baptiste