On 02/04/2015 08:00 PM, Richard Pieri wrote:
On 2/4/2015 7:02 PM, Kent Borg wrote:
I was once at a Apple Developers' Conference--a *way* long time ago--and
Iw ent to a session on debugging. At the beginning they put a slide
saying that a well written program should be able to run for hours--even
days!--without crashing. Seemed both radical and obvious.
Seems neither? I mean, I've seen old database systems with uptimes
measured in years, and one that was approaching a decade at the time
(and if it's still running then it's a few years away from a second
decade). A well-written program won't crash. Period.
Correct. That's my point.
So it is annoying that a library might have a black hole where one can
throw new objects but never get rid of old ones.
But regarding SQLAlchemy, that sounds like a Python-ism. You can't
delete classes in Python.
It seems that all these libraries for doing Python to SQL databases are
just different flavors or the same paradigm*: An "ORM" an "object
relational model". And that seems my disagreement: (I think) they are
all mapping one class to one table. But classes are rather upfront
things that are expected to be somewhat stable, yet I have stuck in my
head the idea that tables should be able to come and go, with little
notice, without restarting my program because resources ran out. (See
earlier point about "well-written programs".)
* I think there is one exception: python-sql, and then I have to start
writing Python code to write SQL statements.
-kb
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
