What are the main problems that ORM solves

Dealing with negative information about the company. The simple meaning is to convey the positive image of a company, and suppress or delete the negative image. Achieve the purpose of word-of-mouth communication.

It can take years to successfully build a brand, but ruining a brand can happen overnight. When we do brand marketing, we may all understand this truth, which refers to brand reputation management.

Pony Marketing Consultant analyzes the following reasons why companies fail in brand reputation management.

Clause. 1. The occurrence of negativity is accidental.

Enterprises also attach great importance to brand reputation management, but negative information comes very suddenly, which catches enterprises off guard.

Clause. Second, the enterprise is negligent in brand communication.

Clause. Third, there is no awareness of word-of-mouth optimization.

The so-called word-of-mouth optimization, first of all, can occupy the search results of brand words with high-weight information, which is like a moat of the brand, even if there is a negative, it will not be displayed on the first page of the brand's search results.

Clause. Fourth, consumers tend to pay more attention to the negative.

There is a saying that "good things don't go out, bad things spread thousands of miles".

How can we do a good job in brand reputation management? The Pony Marketing Agency believes that the following points should be grasped.

1. Take precautions and take the initiative to perceive.

Companies that succeed in brand recognition need to continue to research and re-examine consumers to keep up with the times and surpass themselves.

Conduct regular customer satisfaction surveys to grasp customer feedback at any time;

In the communication, actively use customer recommendations and encourage customers to influence the people around them, so as to make the communication more authentic and credible;

2. Respond in a timely manner and solve problems.

When a negative situation occurs, respond quickly and sincerely to the complaint on social media, and if possible, move to offline to solve the problem.

At the right time, public opinion should be appropriately guided to defend you; If the situation deteriorates further, an official statement should be given.

Deal with all issues with sincerity; If you should apologize, take the initiative to apologize.

Whether your brand is at fault or not, focus on strengthening relationships with stakeholders when making any formal statement.

Once the issue is resolved, you should continue to monitor the situation closely to ensure that it does not escalate again.

If it still doesn't ease, you can learn from the next scenario.

3. Establish a crisis public relations handling mechanism.

When the negative impact is severe enough to affect the brand's long-term reputation and even touch the brand's bottom line, the company must adopt a crisis public relations mechanism.

If the accusation is true:

Pony advises to be open, apologize, take responsibility, and discuss how to prevent and correct if necessary.

Polishing the brand "halo"."Sincere repentance"After that, the image is shaped to highlight the brand influence.

I'm not the only one who provides clues and guides customers to understand the situation, so that the brand does not bear sole responsibility;

Explain your position, downplay the loss; This response is only applicable when the crisis is not severe.

There is no such thing as an absolute necessity in engineering, but in engineering, an ORM is an extremely valuable thing. At that time, some people felt that ORM was a waste of resources and the idea was not clear, although they used Hibernate, they still wrote SQL directly and operated manually.

The ORM framework uses metadata to describe the details of object-relationship mapping, and the metadata is generally in XML format and stored in a special object-map file.

As long as the mapping between the persistence class and the table is provided, the ORM framework can refer to the information in the mapping file at runtime to persist the object to the database. There are three main ORM frameworks: Hibernate, Ibatis, and Eclipselink.

Sometimes, it is very difficult to implement complex SQL queries using a programming language (instead of SQL (which I also took a detour and was used by MS preaching Linq and LinqtoSQL) behind the scenes, hence the question of why complexity arises in even n degrees.

Does it really ease the development workload? Sorry, this is not relaxation. Direct use of SQL access (JDBC or relatively heavy. However, complexity is not focused on the logical implementation of the business, but on the UI layer and user interaction.

Configure the XML layer to write SQL statements. The main business of the program is not to focus on these aspects, but only on the old (iQuery only). For the XML layer, it can be written automatically, complex SQL or human intervention can be handled, and complex queries about the UI can be handled manually.

And finally: I thinkAll languages are universal, there is nothing unnecessary and unnecessary.

ORM can prevent injection as an additional feature, and SQL can also bring an anti-injection mechanism. The main role of an ORM is to map objects from a database domain to an object-oriented domain because developers are more familiar with them.

And the users they are more familiar with have a lot of problems than rows, columns, and foreign keys. The benefit of object-orientation is reuse at the business level, including associations and business logic. The above is that OLTP and OLAP may be different.

There is no sense of violation with ORM for OLAP analysis. While most ORM tools also provide interfaces, like groups, joins, and sums, activerecord actually provides intrinsic connections, which have to spell left joins and cross-joins, but it doesn't actually help much.

Direct writing is the easiest and most straightforward way to do it.

Because in OLAP applications, thinking is not object-oriented, but subject-oriented, dimensional, and metric-centered.

When you access the database directly, the structure is external, inside the document and in the programmer's head. **There is no physical correspondence in . ORM provides you with the physical structure.

SpecificallyWhen ORM, you handle field communication, and when you use SQL to manipulate directly, it's clear that you're using your brain to match business logic to SQL.

With the ORM, abstractions are constructed and fed into the application, so that many of the necessary constraints can be implemented directly in the application, which helps with correctness.

The good thing about ORM is that you don't have to break the object-oriented process to think about SQL, and write ** to make it smooth. But the downside is that there are a lot of limitations and sometimes not as flexible as SQL. But there is another benefit to being able to migrate to a different database.

The quality of the SQL generated by RM is not high, and it is framework-dependent, high and low; Also relevant to people is that people who are familiar with SQL generally have a higher quality, which is a good reason to write good quality C**s written by C programmers who understand hardware.

It improves the production quality and efficiency of the ORM per unit time. I want to make this clear. As for whether you will inevitably write orm** better than artificial, I just have a negative attitude.

For me in particular, I think it's almost impossible to surpass my hand-coded ORM.

However, the ORM allows me to compress the labor cost of some complex work to an acceptable level. For example, I'm working on a data modeling tool. If coding by hand, I would like to consider whether there is a schema, whether there are serials, specific databases, different syntax variations, and different generative purposes for different generations.

I'm going to write a bunch of compiled ** for myself because I have a full-fledged, easy-to-use, QC ORM tool, why not? At least I can reduce the ** by 3 to 4.

ORM is done through the provided interface, using ORM to get data directly, the returned data is usually encapsulated, the use of resources must be greater than the original SQL, convenient when displaying, for an object and a simple combination that does not make much difference. The orm ends up executing the sql statement, and I feel like I'm just using a bunch of ** to generate a string. Admittedly, it's really good in some places, like saving, adding, and modifying, which is convenient.

Reuse hope is good. If I just use an orm to spell SQL statements, I don't feel much of it. Actually, I also use ORM, in the back I use ORM, and my foreground is 80% raw SQL

CQRS is actually the landing framework for DDD. Queries don't need to go through the repository path, so the faster the better, for example, using SQL directly to choose to read the database directly is the best and fastest. Instead of using the application layer, the command part can be omitted, but if the project is large, it's better to use commands.

In actual development, I think you should be open and not limited to rules. It is designed for simplicity, efficiency, and practicality. The so-called standards are also for this purpose.