Search Results

Search found 1326 results on 54 pages for 'orm'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 2/54 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Which ORM to use with SQL Azure?

    - by Jamie Chapman
    Just wondering what everyones thoughts on what ORM to use for SQL Azure? I'm fairly comfortable using LINQ-to-SQL and I believe it is possible to get it working with SQL Azure. However, from my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong), no further improvements will be made to Linq-to-SQL in future releases of the .NET framework? Alternatively, there is the entity framework... and further afield from the Microsoft Camp is NHibernate. Ideally, any additional suggestions made should be free or open source. I have seen Telerik's ORM but this of course, is a commercial product. I can get the definitions/benefits of each ORM myself by doing a Google search, but I was just interested in peoples opinions as to which ORM seems to work best for them (even if it is none of the above).

    Read the article

  • Kohana ORM syntax question

    - by anthony
    I'm using the "join_table" function with Kohana's ORM to build a query. The following works: $category = ORM::factory('category')->join_table('product'); But this doesn't: $category = ORM::factory('category'); $category->join_table('product'); The documentation uses the second as an example, but it returns 0 while the first example returns "categories_products" which is correct. Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • Kohana ORM Aliasing and "Trying to get property of non-object"

    - by Toto
    I have the following tables in the database: teams: id name matches: id team1_id team2_id I've defined the following ORM models in my Kohana application: class Match_Model extends ORM { protected $belongs_to = array('team1_id' => 'team', 'team2_id' => 'team'); } class Team_Model extends ORM { protected $has_many = array('matches'); } The following code in a controller: $match = ORM::factory('match',1); echo $match->team1_id->name; /* <-- */ Is throwing the following error on the linke marked with /* <--- */: Trying to get property of non-object The framework is yielding the value of the foreign key instead of a reference to a Match_Model instance as it should (giving the has_many and belongs_to properties stated). Am I missing something? Note: Just in case, I've added the irregular plural 'match' => 'matches' in application/config/inflector.php

    Read the article

  • MVC without ORM is not real MVC?

    - by ajsie
    at the moment im integrating ORM (doctrine) into a MVC framework (codeigniter). then it hit me that this was the obvious way of setting up a MVC: the controller calls the models that are representing database tables. look at this picture: MVC + ORM then i wondered, how can a MVC without ORM be real MVC? cause then the models are not real objects, rather aggregations of different functions that perform CRUD, then returning the result to the controller. and there is no need for a state (object properties) i guess so the functions would be all static? correct me if im wrong on this one. i guess a lot of people are using models without ORM. please share your thoughts. how do your models look like?

    Read the article

  • Question about the benefit of using an ORM

    - by johnny
    I want to use an ORM for learning purposes and am try nhibernate. I am using the tutorial and then I have a real project. I can go the "old way" or use an ORM. I'm not sure I totally understand the benefit. On the one hand I can create my abstractions in code such that I can change my databases and be database independent. On the other it seems that if I actually change the database columns I have to change all my code. Why wouldn't I have my application without the ORM, change my database and change my code, instead of changing my database, orm, and code? Is it that they database structure doesn't change that much? I believe there are real benefits because ORMs are used by so many. I'm just not sure I get it yet. Thank you. EDIT: In the tutorial they have many files that are used to make the ORM work http://www.hibernate.org/362.html In the event of an application change, it seems like a lot of extra work just to say that I have "proper" abstraction layers. Because I'm new at it it doesn't look that easy to maintain and again seems like extra work, not less.

    Read the article

  • How to custom query using ORM in Fuelphp?

    - by viyancs
    I have a problem when I want to query table using ORM ,example I have article table with field id,author,text. My code like this : // Single where $article = Model_Article::find()->where('id', 4); print_r($article); that't code will be fetch all field on table article, it's like select * from article where id = 4 Try Possibility $article = Model_Article::find(null, array('id','title'))->where('id', 3); the response is object(Orm\Query)#89 (14) { ["model":protected]=> string(10) "Model_Article" ["connection":protected]=> NULL ["view":protected]=> NULL ["alias":protected]=> string(2) "t0" ["relations":protected]=> array(0) { } ["joins":protected]=> array(0) { } ["select":protected]=> array(1) { ["t0_c0"]=> string(5) "t0.id" } ["limit":protected]=> NULL ["offset":protected]=> NULL ["rows_limit":protected]=> NULL ["rows_offset":protected]=> NULL ["where":protected]=> array(1) { [0]=> array(2) { [0]=> string(9) "and_where" [1]=> array(3) { [0]=> string(5) "t0.id" [1]=> string(1) "=" [2]=> int(3) } } } ["order_by":protected]=> array(0) { } ["values":protected]=> array(0) { } } that's is not return id or title field. but when i'm try by adding get_one() method $article = Model_Article::find(null, array('id','title'))->where('id', 3)->get_one(); id is return , but title is not and another field, i don't know why ? Reference ORM Discussion FuelPHP it's say ORM currently will be select all column, no plans to change that at the moment. My Goal I want to query in orm like this select id,owner from article where id = 4 it's will be return only id & owner, how i can get that using orm ?

    Read the article

  • Does it make sense to use ORM in Android development?

    - by Heinzi
    Does it make sense to use an ORM in Android development or is the framework optimized for a tighter coupling between the UI and the DB layer? Background: I've just started with Android development, and my first instinct (coming from a .net background) was to look for a small object-relational mapper and other tools that help reduce boilerplate clode (e.g. POJOs + OrmLite + Lombok). However, while developing my first toy application I stumbled upon a UI class that explicitly requires a database cursor: AlphabetIndexer. That made me wonder if maybe the Android library is not suited for a strict decoupling of UI and DB layer and that I will miss out on a lot of useful, time-saving features if I try to use POJOs everywhere (instead of direct database access). Clarification: I'm quite aware of the advantages of using ORM in general, I'm specifically interested in how well the Android class library plays along with it.

    Read the article

  • How to suggest using an ORM instead of stored procedures?

    - by Wayne M
    I work at a company that only uses stored procedures for all data access, which makes it very annoying to keep our local databases in sync as every commit we have to run new procs. I have used some basic ORMs in the past and I find the experience much better and cleaner. I'd like to suggest to the development manager and rest of the team that we look into using an ORM Of some kind for future development (the rest of the team are only familiar with stored procedures and have never used anything else). The current architecture is .NET 3.5 written like .NET 1.1, with "god classes" that use a strange implementation of ActiveRecord and return untyped DataSets which are looped over in code-behind files - the classes work something like this: class Foo { public bool LoadFoo() { bool blnResult = false; if (this.FooID == 0) { throw new Exception("FooID must be set before calling this method."); } DataSet ds = // ... call to Sproc if (ds.Tables[0].Rows.Count > 0) { foo.FooName = ds.Tables[0].Rows[0]["FooName"].ToString(); // other properties set blnResult = true; } return blnResult; } } // Consumer Foo foo = new Foo(); foo.FooID = 1234; foo.LoadFoo(); // do stuff with foo... There is pretty much no application of any design patterns. There are no tests whatsoever (nobody else knows how to write unit tests, and testing is done through manually loading up the website and poking around). Looking through our database we have: 199 tables, 13 views, a whopping 926 stored procedures and 93 functions. About 30 or so tables are used for batch jobs or external things, the remainder are used in our core application. Is it even worth pursuing a different approach in this scenario? I'm talking about moving forward only since we aren't allowed to refactor the existing code since "it works" so we cannot change the existing classes to use an ORM, but I don't know how often we add brand new modules instead of adding to/fixing current modules so I'm not sure if an ORM is the right approach (too much invested in stored procedures and DataSets). If it is the right choice, how should I present the case for using one? Off the top of my head the only benefits I can think of is having cleaner code (although it might not be, since the current architecture isn't built with ORMs in mind so we would basically be jury-rigging ORMs on to future modules but the old ones would still be using the DataSets) and less hassle to have to remember what procedure scripts have been run and which need to be run, etc. but that's it, and I don't know how compelling an argument that would be. Maintainability is another concern but one that nobody except me seems to be concerned about.

    Read the article

  • How do you handle domain logic that spans multiple model objects in an ORM?

    - by duality_
    So I know that business logic should be placed in the model. But using an ORM it is not as clear where I should place code that handles multiple objects. E.g. let's say we have a Customer model which has a type of either sporty or posh and we wanted to customer.add_bonus() to every posh customer. Where would we do this? Do we create a new class to handle all this? If yes, where do we put it (alongside all the other model classes, but not subclass it from the ORM?)? I'm currently using django framework in python, so specific suggestions are even more wanted.

    Read the article

  • Do I really need an ORM?

    - by alchemical
    We're about to begin development on a mid-size ASP.Net MVC 2 web site. For a typical page, we grab data and throw it up on the web page, i.e. there is not much pre-processing of the data before it is sent to the UI. We're now making the decision whether or not to use an ORM and if yes, which one. We had been looking at EF2 AKA EF4 (ASP.Net Entity Framework in VS 2010) as one possibility. However, I'm thinking a simple solution in this case may be just to use datatables. The reason being that we don't plan to move the data around or process it a lot once we fetch it, so I'm not sure there is that much value in having strongly-typed objects as DTOs. Also, this way we avoid mapping altogether, thereby I think simplifying the code and allowing for faster development. I should mention budget is an issue on this project, as well as speed of execution. We are striving for simplicity anywhere we can, both to keep the budget smaller, the schedule shorter, and performance fast. We haven't fully decided this yet, but are currently leaning towards no ORM. Will we be OK with the no ORM approach or is an ORM worth it?

    Read the article

  • Asynchronous daemon processing / ORM interaction with Django

    - by perrierism
    I'm looking for a way to do asynchronous data processing with a daemon that uses Django ORM. However, the ORM isn't thread-safe; it's not thread-safe to try to retrieve / modify django objects from within threads. So I'm wondering what the correct way to achieve asynchrony is? Basically what I need to accomplish is taking a list of users in the db, querying a third party api and then making updates to user-profile rows for those users. As a daemon or background process. Doing this in series per user is easy, but it takes too long to be at all scalable. If the daemon is retrieving and updating the users through the ORM, how do I achieve processing 10-20 users at a time? I would use a standard threading / queue system for this but you can't thread interactions like models.User.objects.get(id=foo) ... Django itself is an asynchronous processing system which makes asynchronous ORM calls(?) for each request, so there should be a way to do it? I haven't found anything in the documentation so far. Cheers

    Read the article

  • For an ORM supporting data validation, should constraints be enforced in the database as well?

    - by Ramnique Singh
    I have always applied constraints at the database level in addition to my (ActiveRecord) models. But I've been wondering if this is really required? A little background I recently had to unit test a basic automated timestamp generation method for a model. Normally, the test would create an instance of the model and save it without validation. But there are other required fields that aren't nullable at the in the table definition, meaning I cant save the instance even if I skip the ActiveRecord validation. So I'm thinking if I should remove such constraints from the db itself, and let the ORM handle them? Possible advantages if I skip constraints in db, imo - Can modify a validation rule in the model, without having to migrate the database. Can skip validation in testing. Possible disadvantage? If its possible that ORM validation fails or is bypassed, howsoever, the database does not check for constraints. What do you think? EDIT In this case, I'm using the Yii Framework, which generates the model from the database, hence database rules are generated also (though I could always write them post-generation myself too).

    Read the article

  • Kohana 2.3.4 ORM pivot table query

    - by anthony
    I'm trying to query a pivot table with Kohana's ORM and I'm wondering if there is a built in function I'm missing. Currently I only have 2 models setup for the tables "categories" and "products". There is a pivot table "categories_products", but I don't need a model for it when inserting data with this: $product = ORM::factory('product'); $product->add(ORM::factory('category', $addCat)); However, I can't figure out how to query it without creating a model for it. The "join_table" function only returns the name of the pivot table (which I thought selected the table at first). If you can save data to the pivot table without a model, it seems to me that you should be able to retrieve data in a similar way. Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • Best ORM, Simple data Structures, Strong Query analysis.

    - by sayth
    What is the best ORM db combination for simple data structures. That is data that contains names as identifiers and locations, but whose main interaction will be numerical data for times(sports durations), and currency related data. I initially want to create a sports data base that will take names and statistics. Secondarily I plan to start into an investment and stock analysis db. Which ORM suits storing many numerical types and have strong query functions? I really am not biased to db engine (most likely use sqlite or mongo) so any suggestions to best network less db server to suit said ORM appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Kohana 3 ORM limitations

    - by yoda
    Hi, What are the limitations of Kohana 3 ORM regarding table relationships? I'm trying to modify the build-in Auth module in order to accept groups of users in adition, having now the following tables : groups groups_users roles roles_groups users user_tokens By default, this module is set to work without groups, and linking the users and roles using a third table named roles_users, but I need to add groups to it. I'm linking, as you can see by the names, the groups to users and the roles to groups, but I'm failing building the ORM code for it, so that's pretty much the question here, if ORM is limited to 2 relationships or if it can handle 3 in this case. Cheers!

    Read the article

  • ORM on which standards i can select?

    - by just_name
    Q: This question is about how can i figure or select the convenient ORM to my web application. when beginning a new web application,What are the criteria on which i can consider a specific ORM is better than another one for my project or case(web application)? another part of my question : when i begin any web application i use three layers: the DB layer (which contains the connections , and handle the CRUD operations ) the Managers layer(the Data Access Layer) a class for each table on my db (loosely coupled with the previous layer )it contains the CRUD operations for the specific table and the other required operations. the interface layer.. and i use Object Data source.Is that considered as an ORM (as a concept) or I'm wrong in understanding this concept. note:I still a beginner in this field ,, and every day i learn more about web development. please i want explanation and suggestions for this point. Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Helping Kohana 3 ORM to speed up a little

    - by Luke
    I noticed that Kohana 3 ORM runs a "SHOW FULL COLUMNS" for each of my models when I start using them: SHOW FULL COLUMNS FROM `mytable` This query might take a few clock cycles to execute (in the Kohana profiler it's actually the slowest of all queries ran in my current app). Is there a way to help Kohana 3 ORM to speed up by disabling this behaviour and explicitly define the columns in my models instead?

    Read the article

  • Migrating from hand-written persistence layer to ORM

    - by Sergey Mikhanov
    Hi community, We are currently evaluating options for migrating from hand-written persistence layer to ORM. We have a bunch of legacy persistent objects (~200), that implement simple interface like this: interface JDBC { public long getId(); public void setId(long id); public void retrieve(); public void setDataSource(DataSource ds); } When retrieve() is called, object populates itself by issuing handwritten SQL queries to the connection provided using the ID it received in the setter (this usually is the only parameter to the query). It manages its statements, result sets, etc itself. Some of the objects have special flavors of retrive() method, like retrieveByName(), in this case a different SQL is issued. Queries could be quite complex, we often join several tables to populate the sets representing relations to other objects, sometimes join queries are issued on-demand in the specific getter (lazy loading). So basically, we have implemented most of the ORM's functionality manually. The reason for that was performance. We have very strong requirements for speed, and back in 2005 (when this code was written) performance tests has shown that none of mainstream ORMs were that fast as hand-written SQL. The problems we are facing now that make us think of ORM are: Most of the paths in this code are well-tested and are stable. However, some rarely-used code is prone to result set and connection leaks that are very hard to detect We are currently squeezing some additional performance by adding caching to our persistence layer and it's a huge pain to maintain the cached objects manually in this setup Support of this code when DB schema changes is a big problem. I am looking for an advice on what could be the best alternative for us. As far as I know, ORMs has advanced in last 5 years, so it might be that now there's one that offers an acceptable performance. As I see this issue, we need to address those points: Find some way to reuse at least some of the written SQL to express mappings Have the possibility to issue native SQL queries without the necessity to manually decompose their results (i.e. avoid manual rs.getInt(42) as they are very sensitive to schema changes) Add a non-intrusive caching layer Keep the performance figures. Is there any ORM framework you could recommend with regards to that?

    Read the article

  • Is there any new ORM for Delphi 2010?

    - by DelphiDev
    Delphi 2010 has new features regarding the RTTI, which I read it will make it easier for ORM tools and much cleaner code. but I have not found any ORM incorporated these features. Do you think the Embarcadero should built one and include it with Delphi

    Read the article

  • Best Performing ORM for .NET

    - by steve_c
    I'm curious if anyone has done any performance comparisons with any or all of the main players in the .NET ORM space. Specifically I'm interested in comparisons between the following: Linq to SQL NHibernate LLBL Gen Entity Framework Though it seems people don't really consider Linq to SQL a true ORM, I am still including it in this list. Some performance metrics would be nice to see.

    Read the article

  • Use Django ORM as standalone [closed]

    - by KeyboardInterrupt
    Possible Duplicates: Use only some parts of Django? Using only the DB part of Django I want to use the Django ORM as standalone. Despite an hour of searching Google, I'm still left with several questions: Does it require me to set up my Python project with a setting.py, /myApp/ directory, and modules.py file? Can I create a new models.py and run syncdb to have it automatically setup the tables and relationships or can I only use models from existing Django projects? There seems to be a lot of questions regarding PYTHONPATH. If you're not calling existing models is this needed? I guess the easiest thing would be for someone to just post a basic template or walkthrough of the process, clarifying the organization of the files e.g.: db/ __init__.py settings.py myScript.py orm/ __init__.py models.py And the basic essentials: # settings.py from django.conf import settings settings.configure( DATABASE_ENGINE = "postgresql_psycopg2", DATABASE_HOST = "localhost", DATABASE_NAME = "dbName", DATABASE_USER = "user", DATABASE_PASSWORD = "pass", DATABASE_PORT = "5432" ) # orm/models.py # ... # myScript.py # import models.. And whether you need to run something like: django-admin.py inspectdb ... (Oh, I'm running Windows if that changes anything regarding command-line arguments.).

    Read the article

  • Is there an ORM that supports composition w/o Joins

    - by Ken Downs
    EDIT: Changed title from "inheritance" to "composition". Left body of question unchanged. I'm curious if there is an ORM tool that supports inheritance w/o creating separate tables that have to be joined. Simple example. Assume a table of customers, with a Bill-to address, and a table of vendors, with a remit-to address. Keep it simple and assume one address each, not a child table of addresses for each. These addresses will have a handful of values in common: address 1, address 2, city, state/province, postal code. So let's say I'd have a class "addressBlock" and I want the customers and vendors to inherit from this class, and possibly from other classes. But I do not want separate tables that have to be joined, I want the columns in the customer and vendor tables respectively. Is there an ORM that supports this? The closest question I have found on StackOverflow that might be the same question is linked below, but I can't quite figure if the OP is asking what I am asking. He seems to be asking about foregoing inheritance precisely because there will be multiple tables. I'm looking for the case where you can use inheritance w/o generating the multiple tables. Model inheritance approach with Django's ORM

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >