Is Metasafe comparable with the "MS Entity Framework"?

Both systems have in principle the same goal – to “eliminate the impedance mismatch for both application and data services" as Jose Blakely described it in his paper “next Generation Data Access, Making the Conceptual Level Real”. The Entity Framework however has the advantage and the liability to be compatible with an existing "eco-system of relational data bases".

The Entity Framework– similar to hibernate – is an object-relational mapper - designed for an oo-programmer. Tools are provided to create the mapping between an object-view and the implementation on a relational DBMS. The tools of the EF generate the corresponding code and (relational) data base definitions from this specification. Consequently the Entity Framework has all the advantages of compatibility with an RDBMS but has to pay a price in terms of structural limitations and intermediate generation steps.

The direct implementation of the conceptual model (ECM) allows to operate on the conceptual level. This avoids the impedance mismatch but has to pay the price of incompatibility with an RDBMS (not so much with the real world). It has certainly the advantage of the direct connection without manual mapping and intermediate code generation. The practical difference becomes apparent when you start to extend the model: in Metasafe you can extend the model (using the modeler), commit the changes and in the next minute enter data into the database.

Last update on 12.06.2012 by Reinhold Thurner.

Go back

Contact

What is the sum of 4 and 1?