<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Database Models I Have Known And Endured</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.innova-partners.com/blog/2008/10/17/database-models-i-have-known-and-endured/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.innova-partners.com/blog/2008/10/17/database-models-i-have-known-and-endured/</link>
	<description>Innova Partners, software, networking, and websites.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 03 May 2010 07:49:03 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Eddie Bowen</title>
		<link>http://www.innova-partners.com/blog/2008/10/17/database-models-i-have-known-and-endured/comment-page-1/#comment-389</link>
		<dc:creator>Eddie Bowen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Oct 2008 22:04:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.innova-partners.com/blog/?p=234#comment-389</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;would only be as difficult as writing the excel file&lt;/blockquote&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Well duh.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Perhaps I wasn&#039;t very clear; LINQ can use XML or .xls as data &lt;i&gt;sources&lt;/i&gt;, not just as output options. This is the game-changey part.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote>would only be as difficult as writing the excel file</blockquote>

<p>Well duh.</p>

<p>Perhaps I wasn&#8217;t very clear; LINQ can use XML or .xls as data <i>sources</i>, not just as output options. This is the game-changey part.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jon Canady</title>
		<link>http://www.innova-partners.com/blog/2008/10/17/database-models-i-have-known-and-endured/comment-page-1/#comment-388</link>
		<dc:creator>Jon Canady</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Oct 2008 20:26:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.innova-partners.com/blog/?p=234#comment-388</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Yes, I understand I probably just won Eddie $10 by responding with a pro-ActiveRecord comment, but I go forth anyway in the interest of spirited debate!&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;I&#039;m not saying LINQ isn&#039;t awesome: it certainly seems awesome.  I wouldn&#039;t necessarily call it a &quot;game-changer&quot;, but I imagine if I were working in .NET I&#039;d think it were pretty damn awesome.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;But since I&#039;m working in RoR (when I&#039;m not stuck in PHP-land), your RoR example is pretty basic.  It&#039;s just an AR::find operation.  You could very easily call &lt;code&gt;.to_xml&lt;/code&gt; on that find result and get back an XML document.  Or &lt;code&gt;.to_yaml&lt;/code&gt;.  And extending ActiveRecord::Base with a to_excel method that spits out an excel file would only be as difficult as writing the excel file–that is, extending AR is drop-in-the-bucket simple.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;To your &quot;can&#039;t build programatically&quot; point&lt;/b&gt;: You can&#039;t assemble an AR find call easily, no.  But you can do some &lt;a href=&quot;http://ryandaigle.com/articles/2008/3/24/what-s-new-in-edge-rails-has-finder-functionality&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ridiculously&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pathf.com/blogs/2008/06/more-named-scope-awesomeness/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;awesome&lt;/a&gt; things using named scopes, which are extensions to a particular model.  LINQ looks like it just makes it easier to scatter data selection operations willy-nilly around your code without respect to domain objects or organization.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, I understand I probably just won Eddie $10 by responding with a pro-ActiveRecord comment, but I go forth anyway in the interest of spirited debate!</p>

<p>I&#8217;m not saying LINQ isn&#8217;t awesome: it certainly seems awesome.  I wouldn&#8217;t necessarily call it a &#8220;game-changer&#8221;, but I imagine if I were working in .NET I&#8217;d think it were pretty damn awesome.</p>

<p>But since I&#8217;m working in RoR (when I&#8217;m not stuck in PHP-land), your RoR example is pretty basic.  It&#8217;s just an AR::find operation.  You could very easily call <code>.to_xml</code> on that find result and get back an XML document.  Or <code>.to_yaml</code>.  And extending ActiveRecord::Base with a to_excel method that spits out an excel file would only be as difficult as writing the excel file–that is, extending AR is drop-in-the-bucket simple.</p>

<p><b>To your &#8220;can&#8217;t build programatically&#8221; point</b>: You can&#8217;t assemble an AR find call easily, no.  But you can do some <a href="http://ryandaigle.com/articles/2008/3/24/what-s-new-in-edge-rails-has-finder-functionality" rel="nofollow">ridiculously</a> <a href="http://www.pathf.com/blogs/2008/06/more-named-scope-awesomeness/" rel="nofollow">awesome</a> things using named scopes, which are extensions to a particular model.  LINQ looks like it just makes it easier to scatter data selection operations willy-nilly around your code without respect to domain objects or organization.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
