Is everyone here jumping on the ORM band wagon?

Question

Microsoft Linq to SQL, Entity Framework (EF), and nHibernate, etc are all proposing ORMS as the next generation of Data Mapping technologies, and are claiming to be lightweight, fast and easy. Like for example this article that just got published in VS magazine:

http://visualstudiomagazine.com/features/article.aspx?editorialsid=2583

Who all are excited about implementing these technologies in their projects? Where is the innovation in these technologies that makes them so great over their predecessors?

Answer 1

No, I dumped ORMs and switched to an smalltalk and an OODB: Gemstone. Better code, less code, faster development.

Answer 2

I look forward to the day my team starts looking into ORM solutions. Until that day, we are a pure DataSet/Stored Procedure shop and let me tell you that it isn't all biscuits and gravy being "pure".

Firstly, the new Linq to SQL is performing close to that of stored procs and data readers. We use datasets everywhere, so performance would improve. So far so good for ORM.

Secondly, stored procs have the added benefit of being released separate of code, but they also have the detriment of being released separate of code. Pretend for a second that you have a database with more than 5 systems connecting to it and more than 10 people working on it. Now think about managing all those stored procedure changes and dependencies, especially when there is a common code base. It is a nightmare...

Third, it is difficult to debug stored procs. They often result in erroneous behavior for any number of reasons. That is not to say the same could no result from the dynamic sql being generated by the ORM, but one less problem is one less problem. No permissions issues (though mostly resolved in SQL 2005), no more multi step development. Writing the query, testing the query, deploying the query, tying it into the code, testing the code, deploying the code. The query is part of the code and I see this as a good thing.

Fourth, you can still used stored procedures. Running some reports that take a long time? Stored procs are a better solution. Why? Query execution plans can be optimized by the database engine. I won't pretend to understand all the workings of the database, but I do know there are some limitations to optimizing dynamic sql currently and that is a trade off we make when going with an ORM. However, stored procs are not ruled out when using an ORM solution.

Really the biggest reason I see people avoiding an ORM is that they simply don't have experience with one. There will be an obvious learning curve and ignorance stage. However, if it is going to improve development performance and hardly hinder (or in my case improve) performance. It is a trade off worth making.

Answer 3

It's not a bandwagon to jump on, is a reaction to a real problem! Object Relational Mapping (ORM) has been around for a long time and it solves a real problem.

Original Object Oriented(OO) languages were all about simulating real world problems using a computer language. It could be argued that if you are really using an OO language to build systems you will be simulating the real world problem domain using a Domain Driven Design (DDD). This logically takes you to a separation of concerns model in order to keep your DDD clean and clear from all the clutter of data persistence and application controls.

When you build systems following a DDD pattern and use a Relational database for persistence then you really need a good ORM or you will be spending too much time building and maintaining database crud (pun intended).

ORM is an old problem and was solved years ago by products like Object Lens and Top Link. Object Lens was a Smalltalk ORM built by ParkPlace in the 90's. Top Link was built by Object People for Smalltalk, then converted for Java, and is currently used by Oracle. Top Link has also been around since the 90's. DDD advocates are now beginning to clearly articulate the case for DDD and gaining mind share. Therefore ORM, by necessity, is becoming mainstream and Microsoft is just reacting as usual.

Answer 4

Here's one strong opinion.

Answer 5

I have written data access layers, persistence components, and even my own ORMs in hundreds of applications over the years (one of my "hobbies"); I have even implemented my own business transaction manager (discussed elsewhere on SO).

ORM tools have been around for a long time on other platforms, such as Java, Python, etc. It appears that there is a new fad now that Microsoft-centric teams have discovered them. Overall, I think that is a good thing--a necessary step in the journey to explore and comprehend the concepts of architecture and design that seems to have been introduced along with the arrival of .NET.

Bottom line: I would always prefer to do my own data access rather than fight some tool that is trying to "help" me. It is never acceptable to give up my control over my destiny, and data access is a critical part of my application's destiny. Some simple principles make data access very manageable.

Use the basic concepts of modularity, abstraction, and encapsulation--so wrap your platform's basic data access API (e.g., ADO.NET) with your own layer that raises the abstraction level closer to your problem space. DO NOT code all your data access DIRECTLY against that API (also discussed elsewhere on SO).

Severely apply the DRY (Don't Repeat Yourself) principle = refactor the daylights out of your data access code. Use code generation when appropriate as a means of refactoring, but seek to eliminate the need for code generation whenever you can. Generally, code generation reveals that something is missing from your environment--language deficiency, designed-in tool limitation, etc.

Meanwhile, learn to use the available API well, particularly regarding performance and robustness, then incorporate those lessons into your own abstracted data access layer. For example, learn to make proper use of parameters in your SQL rather than embedding literal values into SQL strings.

Finally, keep in mind that any application/system that becomes successful will grow to encounter performance problems. Fixing performance problems relies more on designing them out rather than just "tweaking" something in the implementation. That design work will affect the database and the application, which must change in sync. Therefore, seek to be able to make such changes easily (agile) rather than attempt to avoid ever changing the application itself. In part, that eventually means being able to deploy changes without downtime. It is not hard to do, if you don't "design" away from it.

Answer 6

I dislike the code generation used in most ORMs. In fact, code generation in general I find to be a weak tool that is usually indicative of using the wrong language in the first place.

In particular with .Net reflection, I don't see any need for code gen for ORM purposes.

Answer 7

I'm actually working on writing an ORM tool in .NET as a side project to keep me entertained.

SQL is dead to me. I hate writing it, especially having it in my code anywhere. Manually writing select/insert/update/delete queries for each object is a waste of time IMO. And don't even get me started on handling NULLs ("where col_1 = ?" vs "where col_1 is null") when dynamically generating queries. The ORM tools can handle that for me.

Also, having 1 place that SQL may be dynamically generated would hopefully go a long was to eliminating SQL injection attacks.

On the other hand, I've used Hibernate, and I absolutely hate it. In a real-word project, we ran into limitations, unimplemented bits, and bugs every few weeks.

Keeping the query logic DB side (usually as a view or stored procedure) also has the benefit of being available for DBAs to tune. That was a constant battle at my last job, using Hibernate. DBAs: "give us all the possible queries so we can tune" Devs: "uh, I don't know because Hibernate will generate them on the fly. I can give you some HQL and an XML mapping though!" DBAs: "Don't make me punch you in the face!"

Answer 8

ORM is a good match for people who get along ok with software that writes software for them; but if you are obsessive about controlling what's happening and why, ORM can be suboptimal particularly with database optimization. Any abstraction layer has costs and benefits; ORM has both, but the balance isn't right yet IMHO. And ORM, in its current form, ironically adds an abstraction layer that still puts classes and unabstacted database schemas to intimately together.

My experience is that it can help you get a proof-of-concept version together quickly, but can introduce refactoring requirements you may not be familiar with (at least yet.)

Add to that, that the tool is evolving, and best-practices and patterns are not well established, nor a concensus of the kind that lets other programmers (or future programmers) feel comfortable with your code. So I expect to see higher-than-usual refactoring requirements for a while.

I'll reserve judgment (optimistically) about where it will settle in terms of being mainstream. I wouldn't bet a current project on it at this point. My patterns for dealing with the impedance mismatch are satisfactory for my purposes.

Answer 9

You have to fight with the ORM system once you want to do anything beyond the simplest select, update or delete. And your performance goes into the toilet once you begin doing real stuff.

So no.

Answer 10

We still use a hand rolled, repetitive cut'n'paste DAL where I work. It's extremely painful, complex, and error prone, but it's something all developers can understand. Although it is working for us at the moment, I don't recommend it as it begins to break down quickly on large projects. If someone doesn't want to go to full blown ORM, I'd at least advocate some sort of DAL generation.

Answer 11

If codesmith generates code based on your tables, aren't you still tightly coupled to your data schema? I would prefer a solution that decouples my objects from my database schema for mor flexibility in the architecture

That's from one of your comments - It's true, CodeSmith tightly couples you to your tables.

NHibernate on the other hand has allot of features that can help with that : you have Components so that in code you can have : Person with a property Address ,where Address is a separate class .

You also inheritance mapping. So it does a fair job of decoupling your schema from your domain.

Answer 12

I guess what I meant was, what is the innovation that ORMs provide over building your DAL using traditional ADO.NET, SQL and mapping them to objects in code?

Here are the three major peices of my DAL and I am comparing with ORMs to see the benefits:

1. You still have to have a query in an ORM = SQL (SQL is more powerful by far)

2. Mapping code moves to configuration but still not eliminated, just shifts from one paradigm to another

3. Objects have to be defined and managed tightly relatedto your Data Schema unlike in the traditional approach which I can keep them decoupled.

Am I missing something?

Answer 13

I'm a huge ORM advocate. Code generation with ORM saves my shop about 20-30% on most of our projects.

And we do contract development, so this is a big win.

Chris Lively made an interesting point about having to do a redeploy any time a query gets touched. This may be a problem for some people, but it does not touch us at all. We have rules against making production database changes directly.

Also, you can still rely on traditional sprocs and even views when appropriate... We are not dogmatically 100% ORM, that's for sure.

Answer 14

I'm a big fan as well, using EF and Linq-to-SQL. My reasons are:

Since LINQ is compiled and type safe, you don't get the problems of typos in "string-based" SQL. I don't know how many hours I've spent of my life tracking down an error in an SP or other SQL where a "tick" or some other keyword was in the wrong place.

The above and other factors make development faster.

Though there certainly is overhead compared to "closer to the metal" methods of database querying, none of us would be using .NET at all, or even C++ if performance was our #1 concern. For most apps, I've been able to get excellent performance from Linq-To-SQL, even without using the stored proc approach (the client-based compiled queries is my usual approach).

Certainly for some applications you still want to do things the old fashioned way though.

Answer 15

not yet, still skeptical; like most microsoft products, i wait for SP2 or a year and a half before trusting them in a producton environment

and note that pretty much every new thing introduced by anyone, not just microsoft, is hailed as "lightweight, fast and easy" - take it with a block of salt. They do not advertise the problems/issues quite as loudly as the benefits/features! That's why we wait for early adopters to discover them.

This is not to disparage ORM or LINQ or anything like that; I'm reserving judgement until

• I have time to evaluate them,
• some need arises that only they can satisfy,
• the technology appears stable and well-supported enough to risk in one of my clients' production environments, and/or
• a client requests it

Please note: I've done ORM before, manually, and it worked just fine, so I have high hopes for the newer ORM systems.

Answer 16

I am a big ORM guy, get the logic out of the database, use the database only for speed.

I love the speed you can develop an application. The biggest advantage, depending on the ORM, is you can change the back end without having to translate your business logic.

I switched to LINQ and have never looked back. DBLinq is awesome for doing other database than MSSQL. I have used it with MY SQL and it is GREAT.

Answer 17

I have been following Fluent-NHibernate very closely as it has some of the most potential I've ever seen in a project.

Answer 18

I have been on the ORM train for the longest time, since the free version of LLBLGen to the latest and greatest commercial product LLBLGen Pro. I think ORMs fit in very well for a lot of the common data input output systems.

That isn't to say they solve all problems however. It is a tool which can be used where it makes sense to be used. If your database schema is relativly close to how your business objects need to be, ORMs are the best.

Answer 19

No. Not everyone is.

Here's the number one big ass elephant in the room with most of the ORM tools (especially LINQ to SQL:

You are guaranteed that ANY data related change will require a full redeployment of your application.

For example, my day job can currently fix most query problems by modifying an existing stored procedure and redeploying just that one piece. With Linq, et al, your data queries are moved into your actual code. Guess what that means?