← Back to context

Comment by mulmen

16 days ago

Yeah this is a much better initial dev experience but you still have a schema, even if you ignore it. When your objects are inconsistently shaped something has to fix them. That something is going to take the shape of custom code that would make even the Perl-iest DBA blush.

2 comments

mulmen

Reply
mrkeen  15 days ago

So we've shifted from:

  SQL now (for dev experience) && no-SQL later (for scaling)

to:

  no-SQL initially (for *much better* dev experience) && no-SQL later (for scaling)

I can get behind that.

> When your objects are inconsistently shaped something has to fix them

They have one schema (the class file) instead of two (the class file and the SQL migrations).

  • mulmen  15 days ago

    > They have one schema (the class file) instead of two (the class file and the SQL migrations).

    But what happens when that schema defining class file needs to change? You put all your migration code there? How is that different from SQL migrations?