Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.programming > #5987

Re: Deviating from "standard" active record concept?

Show all headers | View raw

Victor Porton wrote:

> I was assigned to write a lightweight ORM in Perl. This includes writing
> an active record.
> 
> Classic active record pattern implies assignments to fields of a model and
> after this a save operation. What about using
> 
> model->save({Passport=>123456789, FullName=>"Ivan Grotter"})
> (pseudocode)
> 
> instead (that it passing all parameters in one hash, instead of assigning
> one by one)?
> 
> I prefer my variant of active record because it a little simplifies Model
> class. What are other advantages and disadvantages of leaving classic
> active record and using my method?

Hm, now I have realized that save() for a newly created object should assign 
its identifier.

It would be inconsistent to assign the identifier but not to assign other 
fields. This is an argument toward classic active record (rather than my 
variation).

However, alternatively we can make save() to just return the identifier of 
the saved object.

-- 
Victor Porton - http://portonvictor.org

Back to comp.programming | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Deviating from "standard" active record concept? Victor Porton <porton@narod.ru> - 2015-11-26 21:51 +0200
  Re: Deviating from "standard" active record concept? Victor Porton <porton@narod.ru> - 2015-11-26 22:03 +0200
  Re: Deviating from "standard" active record concept? Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2015-11-26 13:26 -0800

csiph-web