Comments on: ORM techniques for legacy databases

By: Rookian

Rookian — Wed, 22 Aug 2012 14:48:00 +0000

I just wanted to say that there are really crazy things.

By: Rookian

Rookian — Wed, 22 Aug 2012 14:17:00 +0000

Ofc it is not commom, but I know such a case and I really ask myself why someone had this stupid idea

By: Tudor

Tudor — Sun, 12 Aug 2012 08:54:00 +0000

As far as I know, Hibernate (Java) supports Interbase (from Borland/Embarcadero).

By: Peter

Peter — Thu, 09 Aug 2012 08:00:00 +0000

We’ve hand-rolled an ORM at my workplace because we use a legacy database unsupported by every ORM I’ve come across — Interbase. We also have loose types (strings for dates, bools), crazy primary keys (compound keys made up of dates, strings, doubles(!)), screaming, fixed-length names and no foreign keys, across about 300 tables. Naming conventions of the past have included classic blunders like tables named ‘FOO’ and ‘FOOS’, and tables named ‘BAR’ and ‘BAR_’. It’s a painful experience to say the least.

By: Soulfiremage

Soulfiremage — Tue, 07 Aug 2012 04:44:00 +0000

I’ve one for you.

A product that uses either access 2007 or SQL server 2005. It must be in one dll and eventually does a form of remote access with a transact SQL batch procedure. The product is in 100 plus sites as access and any one of them may be upgraded to SQL server at any point. Worse there is a content database that must remain local and as an access database. So it always uses two databases whether as a multiuser setup or not.

The content is heavily procedurally accessed at random so it is thought it would be too slow as another single instant on SQL.

So any ORM cope with that or even just Access?

I know a dozen reasons not to use access but for at least 2 years there is no option.

By: Tudor

Tudor — Fri, 03 Aug 2012 07:40:00 +0000

Well, if you have co-workers like that, that’s another (serious) problem.. O/RMs were commonplace in .NET 7 years ago (2005) , so by now any developer should be able to choose to use them or not, depending on the projects specifics..

By: Worlds Of Weird

Worlds Of Weird — Fri, 03 Aug 2012 05:34:00 +0000

What about sprocs that return multiple recordsets? blech!! What about sprocs that return xml columns?

By: Wayne Molina

Wayne Molina — Thu, 02 Aug 2012 16:01:00 +0000

I of course mean “Most of our sprocs had return codes”

By: Wayne Molina

Wayne Molina — Wed, 01 Aug 2012 13:35:00 +0000

Right, but that doesn’t mean ignorant co-workers will want to use an ORM That was the problem I ran into; it was more of a “What’s this fancy ORM thing? SqlConnection/Command works just fine” sort of thing. Although most of our ORMs had return codes, which seemed to be kinda tricky for an ORM to handle.

By: Tudor

Tudor — Wed, 01 Aug 2012 06:31:00 +0000

Any decent O/RM can use stored procedures, if they are not too exotic..