Adobe it seems to be not interested in legacy Databases with ColdFusion9
Tags: Coldfusion
In a post sometime ago I posted some problems when using the new ORM features of ColdFusion 9.
I logged these problems with Adobe as bugs with the ORM feature to ColdFusion 9, to find they are now marked as Under Review. What does under review mean, an how does it affect us as developers?
Well it means that if you are using an older legacy database, which is a database that is not mapped to an ORM then it will not be supported. If any one of your tables doesn't confirm to any primary keys, then you will need to get onto Adobes back about this now.
Otherwise it might be ColdFusion 10 or even ColdFusion 11 before they realise how important his is. How can Adobe mark this as under review when they know full well that unless they can get into the older pre ColdFusion 9 market they are going to be cutting their won throats?
If anyone is listening from Adobe, you need to explain why you are not going to support legacy databases, and cut your own throat?
-
Could you be more specific about which legacy database platforms are not supported?
DW
# Posted By Dan Wilson | 12/9/09 5:07 AM -
Legacy Databases are not datbases by platform, legacy databases is a term that pre dates any ORM mapped database.
If the table doesn't have a Primary key in a databse, it will not be supported.# Posted By Andrew Scott | 12/9/09 5:45 AM -
Just curious, without a primary key how do you think Hibernate (and thus Adobe) will be able to uniquely identify records to provide ORM capabilities?
Hibernate prefers single unique PK, even when you start getting into composite PKs, working with Hibernate becomes more difficult. I'm not sure it would be possible to use Hibernate without a PK...# Posted By JAlpino | 12/9/09 6:27 AM -
I'm really confused here. Are you saying that because ORM doesn't work with tables that have no PKs, then Adobe isn't supporting them? If so, then shouldn't your blog title be clear that you specifically mean the ORM feature. If you can still cfquery them, then it isn't exactly fair to say they aren't supported.
Also - how would ORM load an entity w/o a primary key defined?# Posted By Raymond Camden | 12/9/09 7:34 AM -
First, why would you have a table without a primary key (unless it's a linking table)?
Second, I don't see this as Adobe cutting their own throats. It's not like CF9 won't work on apps using 'legacy databases' no one is holding a gun to people's heads to use ORM.
I really see ORM as a feature that developers will use for future projects and I really question how much 'retrofitting' companies will want to do in order to use ORM on legacy apps (heck -- a lot of those legacy apps out there aren't even using CFCs!).# Posted By Tony Garcia | 12/9/09 8:41 AM -
@Tony - The point is that you should be able to write a brand new rstructured application in anyway shape or form that you so desire.
If that means you have the budget to go the full blown new and improved way of doing it, then the language should not be the bottle neck.
Simple as that.# Posted By Andrew Scott | 12/9/09 3:10 PM
TweetBacks