Database abstraction layer: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 10:33, 29 June 2009

Revision as of 10:35, 29 June 2009

Line 14:

===Future-proofing===

If a system's legacy database backend is outgrown or becomes unusable for some other reason, then database abstraction layer supporters claim that it can be rapidly replaced. This is not without debate, however. Firstly, it assumes that the database abstraction layer properly supports a viable alternative. HoweverSecondly, some people call in to question whether this type of decision is debatedgood engineering practice. For instance [[Jeremy Zawodny]] ([[Yahoo]], [[Craig's List]], [[Friendster]], [[Technorati]], [[Rackspace]], [[LiveJournal]]) states ''That's bullshit. It's never easy.'' ... ''If you truly limit yourself to the subset of features that is common across all major RDBMSes, you're doing yourself and your clients a huge disservice.'' [http://jeremy.zawodny.com/blog/archives/002194.html]

===Wider potential install-base===