Talk:Requests for comment/Data mapper

Concerns
I am mostly concerned with adding something new into core that isn't going to be used, but still needs to be maintained. We already have the ORM interface in core that barely anything uses, why should we add yet another thing?

The RfC says that this could "even disappear at any time" which is probably the biggest turnoff for me. Why would I want to write any code that uses something that could just go away, requiring me to re-write my code? I'll just stick with what works and what I know will work in the future. Legoktm (talk) 16:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Some overlap with RESTBase
There seems to be some overlap with the functionality we are working on in RESTBase. The biggest difference seems to be the style of the interface (array objects with paths vs. PHP objects). This interface can definitely be implemented on top of REST objects, but we should consider the cost for consistency and flexibility. The REST style interface lets us mix storage requests with other service requests and execute those in parallel, while this interface is more focused on storage only. There could be interesting intermediate solutions though, with PHP value objects automatically being converted to / from JSON. -- Gabriel Wicke (GWicke) (talk) 17:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)