Content deleted Content added
→Controversy: new section |
|||
Line 107:
::Sourcing it would be good - but so far all I have found are blogs or framework documentation saying that their own framework is good. Both Toplink and Hibernate rate themselves, justifiably by my experience. -- [[User:Q Chris|Q Chris]] ([[User talk:Q Chris|talk]]) 17:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
== Controversy ==
There's not a single citation in this new section and it looks biased and like POV OR to me. The "emerging trend" is that ORM is being banned? Where not, it's being used accompanied by "heavy justification"? If anybody can find a survey that asked CIOs how heavy the justification needs to be for them to allow ORM to be used in their organisations, I'd love to see it. How heavy are we talking here anyway? Like a boulder? An elephant? Maybe a Blue Whale? [[User:Oldernews|Oldernews]] ([[User talk:Oldernews|talk]]) 12:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
| |||