[sgt101]

I've never bought this :

why not

user.updateGroups('[e-mail]','admin')

Sure you have to write the updateGroups method and use SQL to do it, but that's trival. On the otherhand when you want to do something more complex this is when ORM's inject all sorts of subtle and dangerous bugs into your code base.

I've had some terrible experiences with them...

[JustLurking2022]

That is an atrocity on so many levels.

For one, you're creating a hard coupling to a specific flavor of SQL. And that's not too mention the fact that you're taking an otherwise purely data object and embedding persistence logic into it - a horrifying abuse of OO.

[gwbas1c]

> you're creating a hard coupling to a specific flavor of SQL

You're just trading one coupling (specific flavor of SQL) to another (your ORM.)

Assuming your application is layered correctly, when you write your own queries, all of your SQL queries are in a single place and can be updated.

BUT: If you're using an ORM, and you let your data bound objects leak into all layers, the coupling is much much much harder to fix if you chose to change your ORM. IE, if you do things like lazy loading, or construct your queries in business logic, switching ORMs will be extremely painful.

I've done it both ways (write my own SQL and use an ORM) and I would say the single biggest mistake is to assume that you absolutely should (or shouldn't) use an ORM.

[JustLurking2022]

Not at all - in most architectures, your data objects know nothing about how they are being stored, instead delegating that to a repository class or something similar.

Adding persistence logic to a data object adds all kinds of bloat - it has to have a connection to the database, which now makes unit testing a pain in the neck and introduces all kinds of weirdness around serialization. Now it has a bunch of CRUD methods, so developers have to know which methods are for business logic versus persistence. Also, data objects with persistence logic aren't really suited to be published in a shared library as clients should not access your database directly.

All around, it's just a really terrible idea.

[gwbas1c]

> Adding persistence logic to a data object adds all kinds of bloat

That's not what you do if you write your own queries. That's what a novice does after learning object oriented programming.

For a more accurate example, look at things like Hibernate / NHibernate / Entity Framework and lazy loading. They inherit from classes at runtime and will transparently run queries as business logic navigates relationships on an object graph. It's "not wrong," but it can lead to all kinds of problems and painful refactors. (But it's totally "worth it" in prototypes, one-offs, and throwaway code.)

If you don't do lazy loading, Entity Framework still requires that you pre-declare which relationships you will traverse. It's intended that your business logic uses Entity Framework APIs to say what part of the object graph it will use. (Thus tightly coupling your application to your ORM, which means your trading tightly coupling to a database to tightly coupling to a framework / library.)

But, keep in mind that the ORMs I mentioned tie the objects to the database connection. It isn't quite as intense as "Adding persistence logic to a data object", but they do track that, if you modify an object, it can only be saved on the transaction that it was loaded from; or if you're using lazy loading, lazy loading only works if the transaction is still open.

If you build a layer around your data access code that fully shields your business logic from your ORM, you've "done it right." But, at that point your ORM's value becomes negligible, because from the perspective of your business logic, it doesn't matter if your data access layer has hand-optimized SQL or an ORM; but you've lost one of the real selling points of an ORM, which is that you can easily do your data access from within your business logic. Which is why I say that the biggest mistake is assuming you should, or shouldn't, use an ORM.

[JustLurking2022]

Three things - first, it wasn't my example, I'm just responding to the terrible looking code in your previous comment.

Second, you just tried to argue for manually writing your own SQL rather than using an ORM by suggesting the way NHibernate (an ORM) does it is the right one. Might want to think up a new argument.

Finally, I used NHibernate in the past but it's gone out of favor because of the problematic things it does. Those proxies have to be runtime generated (startup cost + some extra overhead for each query) and are terrible for your data model. You have to mark properties virtual and suddenly GetType doesn't return the expected value. State tracking is actually not a great idea - causes many people to do dumb things like querying just to perform an update.

Entity Framework with state tracking turned off is better all around.

[asalahli]

> you're creating a hard coupling to a specific flavor of SQL.

I fail to see why this is a problem. Switching databases is a costly move, and is pretty rare as far as I know. When it does happen, it is usually from one type of db to another type, not between two RDBMSs.

IMO it doesn't, by itself, justify sticking to an ORM rather than raw SQL.

[lenkite]

Switching databases can be an easy move depending on how you design schemas, versioning and migration. We have a multi-cloud, multi-db offering - customers choose their DB. Without ORM, this would not be feasible.

[JustLurking2022]

I do it all the time - I use SQLite for testing and something else in production.

[ajgrover]

Many/most ORMs (the ones that follow the ActiveRecord pattern) do this as well though. I prefer to avoid mixing concerns and use datamapper-based ORMs myself, but what GP wrote is fundamentally not that different than what a lot of ORMs do.

[JustLurking2022]

I'd dispute "most", as it does not match my experience across a number of languages. Yes, active record sorta does it but, as best I recall, those methods are all implemented generically as mixins, so not actually a part of the data object. This seems to be advocating for data specific queries to be added to each class.

[ajgrover]

Rails and Django are both AR, and are still probably the two most widely used backend frameworks, for better or for worse.

I don’t disagree with the overall point you’re making, I’m just pointing out that it’s very common

[JustLurking2022]

Ummm... No. See my previous comment - at least in Rails, the queries aren't part of the data object themselves, but are instead mixins or default handlers (don't recall which offhand), so it's really just syntactic sugar that makes it appear as though they are methods on the data class.

Even if they did the same thing you're suggesting, by that logic, we should all use PHP because WordPress does, and it's probably more popular than those two combined.

Take a look at something like Spring or Entity Framework to see other takes on ORM patterns.

And again, you're trying to argue against ORMs, while citing that your suggested alternative is supported by the way ORMs do it.

[ajgrover]

I’m not the person that suggested handwriting object methods. As I’ve said, I agree with the point you’re making, I’m not arguing with you, or for any specific ORM design.

I don’t see what the nuance is you’re getting at with the mixin vs object method argument though. They both have the same issues around testability and violation of SRP.