Talk:Object–relational mapping

message: "This creates, in effect, a "virtual object database" that can be used from within the programming language." I don't think this is the only way for ORM mechanisms/frameworks/tools. Instead, I will say that this is a common implementation for ORM solutions. "Mapping" as relating objects to rows could be solved by creating "hybrid" objects (objects with PK or FK attributes), but also with a real external mapping without changing or mixing domain classes with records. 63.128.77.30 (talk) 17:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction

message: SQL isn't relational, and most of the mentions of 'relational' here aren't correct but refer to SQL actually.  So I am correcting the article and will move it.  Leandrod 19:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sure there is an interesting hair being split here, but in general, "SQL" is the industry standard for accessing "relational" databases, and "ORM" is what this kind of tool is called. I don't know what more to say about the subject without understanding what hair is being split exactly. Is the issue that SQL is a pragmatic real-world language rather than an idealized relational formalism? But ORM tools are also pragmatic real-world tools. Suffice to say I agree with other editors who have changed it all back to "object-relational mapping". Lexspoon (talk) 13:57, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

text: This is vandalism it will be cleaned up Real Soon Now. Look at the history of the article and pich a version before User:Leandrod replaced relational by SQL. —R. Koot 23:10, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Relational vs. Non-Relational

message: The author of this article seems to be slagging on the Cache database a bit.  However I the Cache's claims to multidimensional database are on the level as far as I know.  
From their website:
>>Innovative Database. Guaranteed Performance.
CACHÉ is a multidimensional database that uniquely combines robust objects and robust SQL, thus eliminating object-relational mapping. Caché enables rapid Web application development, extraordinary transaction processing speed, massive scalability, and real-time queries against transactional data - with minimal maintenance requirements.
Cache is based on the MUMPS programming language and database. I beleive their claims to true multidimensional database cabability to be more true than the author of this post-relational database article claims. Comments, Suggestions?
65.213.63.17 20:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cache

message: Do any of these tools support or help generate XForms XML?
--JonathanFreed 14:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: XForms

message: News broke today that a company called "Firestar Software" is suing Red Hat, owners of the JBoss software, over infringement of a patent which appears to cover ORM. I need to think through whether/how to add that info to the article, but wanted to add a note about it here to remind myself and anyone else who wants to work on writing it up.
An article about the suit is here: http://www.infoq.com/news/RedHat-Sued-Due-to-Hibernate-3-O
Ubernostrum 15:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Firestar lawsuit

message: Could someone point me to the ObjC version of EOF that is mentioned in the article. I have been under the impression that ObjC version was killed soon after Apple bought NeXT and Java version is the only one there is.
If you can find a copy of WebObjects 4.5, that includes the Objective-C version of EOF.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.121.38 (talk) 03:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ObjC version of EOF, where? 

message: Is there a difference between this and Object-relationship modeling? If not, should these two pages be merged?
Agreed. This article should take over Object-relationship modeling.
:I've made the Object-relationship modeling page redirect here. There wasn't really any content in there that isn't already in this article (and written in a better style) so I didn't add anything to this article. Mutant 17:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Object-relational modelling 

message: There are far too many links. Please limit to only authoritative and well-organized sources. --Froggienation 20:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: I'd like to propose a new category with corresponding article to catalog all the ORM technologies available in the different languages.  It would include Hibernate, NHibernate, SQLAlchemy, ActiveRecord (Rails), etc.  --Kibbled bits (talk) 13:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Proposed Article 

message: Test Section  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.243.32.14 (talk) 06:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Test Section 

message: Most ORM frameworks now should deal with simple joins very well, and even complex ones if following certain templates. The bulk deletions would require custom SQL, and probably are not well done through ORM tools -- Q Chris (talk) 15:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Tend to agree.  (If Zend Framework can handle joins okay, surely software that doesn't suck must have gotten it by now.)  What would be really awesome is if we had a source saying something about it, of course... —chaos5023 (talk) 15:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sourcing it would be good - but so far all I have found are blogs or framework documentation saying that their own framework is good. Both Toplink and Hibernate rate themselves, justifiably by my experience. -- Q Chris (talk) 17:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious 

message: Does the use of ORM potentially abstract the use of a particular database - instead becoming potentially an interface to as many database engines as the technology in use potentially supports.
ORMLite for example claims
"Supports MySQL, Postgres, Microsoft SQL Server, H2, Derby, HSQLDB, and Sqlite and can be extended to additional databases relatively easily."
I'm not sure if this is true across all ORM technologies.  If it is then should this be made clearer in the article as an advantage to ORM?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.237.64.150 (talk) 09:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abstraction 

message: Would be nice to see some information about those so-called "Micro OR/Ms" that came up within the last 1-2 years, namely Dapper, Massive, PetaPoco and others.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.14.229.174 (talk) 17:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about Micro OR/Ms? 

message: This example C# line is given as a way to find the person with ID 10:
: var person = Person.Get(Person.Properties.Id == 10);
However, it looks wrong to me. (Person.Properties.Id == 10) would yield a bool: either true or false. It isn't a lambda or closure or a method that can run to perform a search. Equinox ◑ 15:36, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: (Weeks later: I have removed the incorrect code.) Equinox ◑ 05:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect C# code?