# 09 Mayıs 2007 Çarşamba
Ayende, in his post on virtual entry barriers / learning curve of Castle pieces, said:
One of the main differences between OSS and Commercial software is the amount of time that is invested in the frills. Active Record and NHibernate has a designer, which is nice, but it is not a level 1 priority to any of the people using either Active Record or NHibernate. The reason is that both those frameworks were built knowing that a designer is not something that you should need in order to work with them.
That is, of course, super true for MonoRail and when I started working on ActiveWriter, I said "ActiveRecord is so simple, no one gonna use a code generator for it". Now I think somewhat different, in the context of O/RM designers.

When I think of working with ActiveRecord, I see it in two different parts. First is the sceleton of an entity; all the attributes tagging the class, properties and fields to describe the model to ActiveRecord and then NHibernate, eventually.


    public partial class Entity : ActiveRecordBase {


        private int _key;


        [PrimaryKey(PrimaryKeyType.Native, ColumnType="Int32")]

        public int Key {

            get {

                return this._key;


            set {

                this._key = value;




This code is a no brainer to write and AR has quite good documentation to get you there easily. But it's so repetative that it's the perfect place for using a designer. I don't say that people using ActiveRecord should forget all the attributes to define an entity alltogether, but once you studied the underlying workings of the framework I believe even the most basic framework can use a designer when it comes to the brute force part of the code. After all, you are designing some entitities and that's what a designer do best.

One problem here is that it's not easy to modify this kind of generated code. Thanks to 2.0, partial classes help great when adding new functionality, but it's impossible to modify generated getters and setters. DSL Tools is using the term "double derived" for the approach used to solve this problem, use an inherited empty entity instead of the original one around to make it possible to override properties. This model works fine in DSL Tools context but might make real world entities complicated. This one and solutions like this which makes code more bloated are, I believe, the dark side of code generating designers.

There is also the process of giving the entity some brains; validation, query helper etc. I, again, can see the value of a designer here. ActiveWriter can generate entities with ActiveRecord validators (and there's a JIRA entry waiting to port it to Castle validators). Thanks to his permission, I'll integrate Ayende's Generator into ActiveWriter to make it generate code with all the typed query functionality but ActiveWriter of course won't be writing the query.

The other part of working with ActiveRecord is knowing what the framework gives you, what does it do on behalf, what are the list of things to know beforehand to know before it starts persisting. You should know about lazy loading, order of saving, inverse relations etc. This is the point when you instruct the framework to manage what you designed before, and I think where a designer should keep it's hands off. ActiveWriter, and tools alike, should help developers to define metadata. They should not act like metadata manipulators to do the programming. I consider Ayende's comments above true in this part of the usage. A good O/RM designer should work without getting the way, and shouldn't make the user careless by doing the thinking on behalf.