Re: Proposal: use SQLAlchemy Core for query generation
> I am pretty sure SQLAlchemy-Migrate has fallen out of favor. You should > check Alembic, http://alembic.readthedocs.org/en/latest/. Ah, interesting. Alembic doesn't appear to support fully mutating SQLite databases, which is the really gnarly part of the South code I'd love to outsource. Looks like there's still plenty of work to be done no matter what happens. Andrew -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en.
Re: Proposal: use SQLAlchemy Core for query generation
On Sunday, July 1, 2012 6:11:34 AM UTC-5, Andrew Godwin wrote: > > Nice to see this after you mentioned it a couple of weeks ago, Luke! I'm > very slightly in favour of the whole idea, but I'm skeptical about the > amount of work this will require in the DB backend, and what that means > for the ORM's large number of little tricks that people are used to > using. It's going to be a big change for them. > > One area I'm particularly interested in (naturally) is the DDL > generation stuff - I'm in the middle of writing new full DDL (i.e. > ALTER, DROP) backends for Django, and obviously that comes with its own > set of DB-specific changes and workarounds. > > It looks like SQLAlchemy Core would help that aspect, but only slightly > - most of the code is in mapping operations on models to operations on > tables, and I don't think SQLAlchemy Core doesn't have any support for > mutating SQLite (for that we'd need to turn to SQLAlchemy-Migrate). > > Basically, what I'm saying is that while I'd jump behind it if it would > save me this work in the short term, I don't think it will - otherwise, > I'd propose we start the gradual introduction of it in the new DDL > modules, and get the ball rolling. However, it looks like it would end > up resulting in far more work than sticking with what's there (mostly > due to having to fiddle with things like how fields specify types and > relationships and tables work). > > Still, I'm +0 on the whole idea. > > Andrew > > I am pretty sure SQLAlchemy-Migrate has fallen out of favor. You should check Alembic, http://alembic.readthedocs.org/en/latest/. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/django-developers/-/JW0hkvvcflgJ. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en.
Re: Proposal: use SQLAlchemy Core for query generation
On 30/06/12 15:22, Luke Plant wrote: > Hi all, > > A good while back I put forward the idea of using SQLAlchemy Core in > Django [1]. Having had more experience working with SQLAlchemy, I'm > putting that idea forward as a formal proposal, as I mentioned in a more > recent thread here. > > Apologies in advance for the length! I've included a few 'TL;DR' > summaries and headings in the different sections which you might want to > scan first. > > === Proposal === > (snip) Nice to see this after you mentioned it a couple of weeks ago, Luke! I'm very slightly in favour of the whole idea, but I'm skeptical about the amount of work this will require in the DB backend, and what that means for the ORM's large number of little tricks that people are used to using. It's going to be a big change for them. One area I'm particularly interested in (naturally) is the DDL generation stuff - I'm in the middle of writing new full DDL (i.e. ALTER, DROP) backends for Django, and obviously that comes with its own set of DB-specific changes and workarounds. It looks like SQLAlchemy Core would help that aspect, but only slightly - most of the code is in mapping operations on models to operations on tables, and I don't think SQLAlchemy Core doesn't have any support for mutating SQLite (for that we'd need to turn to SQLAlchemy-Migrate). Basically, what I'm saying is that while I'd jump behind it if it would save me this work in the short term, I don't think it will - otherwise, I'd propose we start the gradual introduction of it in the new DDL modules, and get the ball rolling. However, it looks like it would end up resulting in far more work than sticking with what's there (mostly due to having to fiddle with things like how fields specify types and relationships and tables work). Still, I'm +0 on the whole idea. Andrew -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en.
