I want to address a completely different point, and that *innovation*. I 
believe that 3rd party backends could lead to more innovation in the Django 
ORM.
Currently if you want to introduce a new feature for your database, you are 
faced with a lot of complications added by databases you might not be 
familiar with. Furthermore you might be requested to makes those features 
available for databases you haven't used before. This drastically increases 
the bar for contributing innovative new features. As an example, I wanted 
to add database defaults for Postgres and multiple insert return values. I 
finished the postgres feature in 2 sprints, but it took me another half 
year to implement the same for Oracle. Mainly because I never used Oracle 
before.

Beyond that I see that the sheer effort to remove the backends from core 
could lead to better design. We currently assume that all databases speak 
some flavor of Std SQL, which isn't even true for the currently supported 
databases and certainly not for the verify famous mongo-db backend.

In conclusion, more separation will lead to more diversity. But that is a 
good thing, something to embrace and can lead to great results. I would 
even go as far as to kick Postgres out too, contrary to what Florian 
suggested. I believe Postgres could benefit from a separate package.

I think Django has the best ORMs and us being able to make changes and 
innovate, can ensure that this is still true a decade from now.

On Friday, March 15, 2013 at 3:29:29 PM UTC+1, VernonCole wrote:
>
> My organization just hit a use case where we need MS-SQL support. 
>
>  I am jumping on board, so there are at least two of us who can do
> maintenance. 
>
> I must say that I would prefer quasi-supported status (akin to admin 
> and geodjango) rather than actually being in the core.  I think it would 
> be a better fit for most situations.  We will always be a small minority of
> django users.  I would just like some assurance that pull requests needed
> to provide good hook support for external database backends got prompt 
> attention from the core developers.
> --
> Vernon Cole
>
> On Thursday, March 7, 2013 6:46:18 PM UTC+1, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 3:22 AM, Marc Tamlyn <marc....@gmail.com> wrote: 
>> > I don't know why Oracle is included and MSSQL is not [...] 
>>
>> It's essentially because a group of people made a concerted effort to 
>> get the Oracle backend up to snuff (around the 1.0 timeline, I think?) 
>> and then committed to maintaining it. Lately the original people who'd 
>> made that commitment have dropped off a bit, but there's always been 
>> enough attention to keep it up to date. 
>>
>> If someone -- preferably a group -- stepped up and committed to 
>> keeping a MSSQL backend up-to-date in core, I'd be +1 on merging it 
>> and giving those people commit access to keep it up to date. 
>>
>> [This is me speaking personally, not as a BDFL. It'd have to be a 
>> discussion, not just my fiat.] 
>>
>> Jacob 
>>
>

-- 
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/978f91f8-709a-48dc-b2e2-b940e19a9f7f%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to