In the beginning I thought about making an api which supports column databases such as cassendra but would mean that i would need to first find commonalities between all 3 ( column , document and relational ) but such commonalities would be lesser and so finally i would require to create a separate api instead of trying to provide it with db.Model.
So i will be target only document based databases like mongo , rethink etc. There is an opinion I seek from the community. 1 ) Providing a separate Model written specifically for document database would provide easier addition of new features related to real time capabilities which could be used after ASGI gets merged. Also a developer usually knows before writing any code which type of database (relational or non-relational ) so in my opinion there wouldn't be developers who would use sqlite in dev mode and then change it to mongo in production. So would it be better to provide a separate Model for document databases ? 2 ) On the other hand , using the db.Model will be easier to use as the api is already familiar with the developers but using the same api suggests a certain level of similarity between databases which cant be seen in case of relational and document databases. So would the community be open to adding a seperate Model class eg. DocumentModel or Collection . There are alot of problems which are to be address ( some mentioned by Anssi Kääriäinen ). The multiple database support,Forms,migrations,Meta,django admin , django auth etc. I would try to address the problems in my proposal as in-depth as possible. On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 3:20:25 AM UTC+5:30, Curtis Maloney wrote: > > It sounds like by "NoSQL DBS" you mean specifically "Document store > DBMS". Is this correct? > > (I'm sure most people know my rant about how "NoSQL" is a misnomer, and > it's really "Non-relational" that people mean - it's not SQL per se > they're avoiding, it's the relational model) > > The NoSQL/Non-rel name is really too vague, as it covers "anything > that's not SQL / Relational"... which can cover key/value, document, > graph, log, and even filesystem or email, when it comes down to it. > > I think it will help if you clarify what model you _do_ target, not > which you do _not_. > > All that said/vented, I agree it would be nice to have a common > abstraction layer atop various document stores. The trick now will be > finding sufficient commonalities. > > I feel that the ORM's relation-span/transforms/lookups syntax would be > equally viable on nested documents. > > One of the benefits of an abstraction layer is allowing other tools to > generically interact with these new objects. What plans do you have for > how to support non-flat documents in, for instance, Forms? > > > -- > Curtis > > On 16/03/16 05:29, girish ramnani wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > I would like to propose providing a standard interface for NoSQL > > databases . Some the points to consider are: > > > > 1. The /Fields /which are used to define the schema of the sql > > databases can also be used to provide in No sql databases. > > 2. In NoSQL dbs ,developers usually store data in denormalized form. so > > in two related collections a meta tag /denormal = True /can be > > provided. Which would make that collection a child of the other > > model ( related ). In normal scenario the collections will be > > connected using _id used as a foreign key. > > 3. providing contrib.mongo with Field such as GridFSField for providing > > support for GridFS > > 4. considering the database transaction transaction blocking ( PyMongo > > provides blocking api for mongo ) > > 5. creating Mixins such as /FlexibleMixin /which would allow Models to > > have dynamic fields. i.e directly insert fields which are not listed > > in the Model schema. > > > > > > there are lot more things (Migrations, settings etc) to consider but > > before that needed to know that I am going in the right direction or > > not?. Please suggest. > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > Groups "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group. > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send > > an email to django-develop...@googlegroups.com <javascript:> > > <mailto:django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>>. > > To post to this group, send email to django-d...@googlegroups.com > <javascript:> > > <mailto:django-d...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>>. > > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/django-developers. > > To view this discussion on the web visit > > > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/b2477318-9252-4241-a9fe-0972acb1b1cf%40googlegroups.com > > > < > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/b2477318-9252-4241-a9fe-0972acb1b1cf%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. > > > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/django-developers. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/6cdcf03c-5a4d-4f84-877a-e40436edff4b%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
