On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 11:29 PM, Patryk Zawadzki <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 9:40 PM, legutierr <[email protected]> wrote: >> Maybe it is inevitable that this kind of debate will crop up in any >> discussion of django-nonrel or NoSQL, but I very much hope that the >> philosophical debate does not detract from this fact: that django- >> nonrel has demonstrated in very real terms that the actual changes >> needed for Django's ORM to interface with a diverse set of non- >> relational systems, are, in the general scheme of things, relatively >> minor. Because they are localized and relatively minor, if those >> changes do not have a negative impact on the usability and stability >> of the ORM, and if they do not introduce noticeable backwards >> incompatibility, that small set of changes should, in my opinion, be >> considered for acceptance into Django. > > Please don't get me wrong. I have worked with RDBMS for more than a > decade but I alse use django-nonrel with MongoDB on a daily basis. I > also think that the approach django-mongokit takes is much more > natural for NoSQL data than just reusing the ORM. The ORM has no way > to express complex structures and if such support is added, you will > always have to choose which subset to use.
Are EmbeddedModelField and DictField not enough to express complex structures? Django-nonrel currently only doesn't allow to run complex queries on those fields, but that can be added. Bye, Waldemar -- Django on App Engine, MongoDB, ...? Browser-side Python? It's open-source: http://www.allbuttonspressed.com/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en.
