Content deleted Content added
Benja Online (talk | contribs) Both previous links lead to 404's/not-founds. I believe this is what the original author was intending to reference |
Benja Online (talk | contribs) correcting previously available excerpt link to point to the article intended and not 404 |
||
Line 44:
==Comparison with traditional data access techniques==
Compared to traditional techniques of exchange between an object-oriented language and a relational database, ORM often reduces the amount of code that needs to be written.<ref>Douglas Barry, Torsten Stanienda, "Solving the Java Object Storage Problem," Computer, vol. 31, no. 11, pp. 33-40, Nov. 1998, [https://www.computer.org/csdl/magazine/co/1998/11/ry033/13rRUxC0SRY. Excerpt at https://www.service-architecture.com/articles/object-relational-mapping/transparent-persistence-vs-jdbc-call-level-interface.html Lines of code using O/R are only a fraction of those needed for a call-level interface (1:4). ''For this exercise, 496 lines of code were needed using the ODMG Java Binding compared to 1,923 lines of code using JDBC.''</ref>
Disadvantages of ORM tools generally stem from the high level of [[Database abstraction layer|abstraction]] obscuring what is actually happening in the implementation code. Also, heavy reliance on ORM software has been cited as a major factor in producing poorly designed databases.<ref>Josh Berkus, "Wrecking Your Database", Computer, Aug. 2009, https://www.toolbox.com/tech/data-management/blogs/wrecking-your-database-080509/</ref>
| |||