[Dbix-class] design thought

[David Storrs]

On Jul 29, 2005, at 6:02 PM, Todd Hepler wrote:

> One of my frustrations with cdbi is that it is limited to DBI and  
> assumes that all the objects represent rows in a database.

Not really.  It assumes that they are records in a backing store, but  
that backing store could be an RDBMS, a flatfile, or anything else  
that provides a conformant DBD module.

Granted, the interface does use DB-centric terms like 'row' and  
'col', but those are pretty much synonymous with 'record' and 'field'  
in a more generic context.

So yes, I think you can probably have exactly what you want--you just  
need to write the relevant DBD modules.

--Dks