2 ms·
No, absolutely not. Op is never implying they intend to maintain one to one correspondence between the DB and objects and do that through manipulating objects
by RandomThoughts3 2y ago
No, absolutely not.
Op is never implying they intend to maintain one to one correspondence between the DB and objects and do that through manipulating objects only. Mapping hand written queries results to structs and updating the DB yourself on the basis of what is in structs is not at all an ORM.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- orf 2y ago> Mapping hand written queries results to structs and updating the DB yourself on the basis of what is in structs is not at all an ORM. You just described a bad, home-grown Object Relational Mapper.
- RandomThoughts3 2y agoNo, absolutely not. You don’t even try to manipulate the DB using object-oriented concept in this case. That’s just a good old I/O layer used on a need to basis. This is not in any way an ORM by any sane definition of what an ORM is.