Re: Thinking about NoSQL support

On Sunday, September 8, 2013 2:20:56 AM UTC-4, Benjamin Zuill-Smith wrote: > The django-nonrel project is alive and looking for contributors. >> > > Hi Alex, thanks for responding. I guess I was concerned by the lack of > commits lately, but looks like it's still alive and kicking by your post.

Re: Thinking about NoSQL support

weary >> of starting any real project using it. Are there any contributors out there >> considering adding native NoSql support? Plus, many NoSql solutions provide >> common functionality which could translate into a common interface which >> Django could provide. I'd be intereste

Re: Thinking about NoSQL support

e because it is > not built into Django but added like middleware under the hood. I'm weary > of starting any real project using it. Are there any contributors out there > considering adding native NoSql support? Plus, many NoSql solutions provide > common functionality which could tr

Re: Thinking about NoSQL support

> > > > I wish people would stop abusing the term "NoSQL". Your target concept > is > > Non-Relational data stores, not SQL itself. There's a whole bunch of > > relational stores that don't use SQL, one of them is even called NoSQL!) > > > > to me, "Non-Relational data stores" still sounds as

Re: Thinking about NoSQL support

On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 7:44 PM, Curtis Maloney wrote: > But trying to shoe-horn a single API onto all models won't work. +1 to this. there are lots of kinds of databases, relational, hierarchical, object based, key-value, document-based, column-oriented, graphs,

Re: Thinking about NoSQL support

project called > mongodb-engine but the solutions it brings feel hackish to me because it is > not built into Django but added like middleware under the hood. I'm weary > of starting any real project using it. Are there any contributors out there > considering adding native NoSql support? Plus, many No

Thinking about NoSQL support

of starting any real project using it. Are there any contributors out there considering adding native NoSql support? Plus, many NoSql solutions provide common functionality which could translate into a common interface which Django could provide. I'd be interested to contribute to such an effort

Re: Django NoSQL support status?

me > personally, and so addressing other problems has taken a priority. I > think it's safe to assume the same is true of the other core > developers. > > > Basically, I'm just wondering what, if anything, is being done about > > it? > > Is there a core developer

Re: Django NoSQL support status?

ering what the status is on the official NoSQL > > support? I've done a lot of reading and the last official post I can > > see is Alex Gaynor's GSoC post, from August last year mentioning the > > Query refactor and how it should help down the road for NoSQL, but > > nothing past that.

Re: Django NoSQL support status?

On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Nathan Hoad <nat...@getoffmalawn.com> wrote: > Hi guys, just wondering what the status is on the official NoSQL > support? I've done a lot of reading and the last official post I can > see is Alex Gaynor's GSoC post, from August last year mention

Django NoSQL support status?

Hi guys, just wondering what the status is on the official NoSQL support? I've done a lot of reading and the last official post I can see is Alex Gaynor's GSoC post, from August last year mentioning the Query refactor and how it should help down the road for NoSQL, but nothing past

Re: NoSQL support

> You do make a good point.  It's not just that NoSQL systems lack > features (transactions, schema, relations) that are common to SQL- > based systems Actually most graph databases (such as neo4j) which are all considered NoSQL, have all those features you just mentioned (ACID, relations,

Re: NoSQL support

On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 11:29 PM, Patryk Zawadzki wrote: > On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 9:40 PM, legutierr 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 >>

Re: NoSQL support

> 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

Re: NoSQL support

On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 9:40 PM, legutierr 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

Re: NoSQL support

> Did you guys consider providing a Document class that is entirely > separate from models.Model? > > Technically speaking teaching the ORM non-relational tricks is of > course possible but in reality the philosophy is entirely different > and you need to plan for NoSQL from the very beginning.

Re: NoSQL support

On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 10:12 AM, Waldemar Kornewald <wkornew...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > we (the Django-nonrel developers) would like to work on official NoSQL > support for Django. We'd like to focus only on databases similar to > App Engine, MongoDB, and Cassandra 0.7+ with

Re: NoSQL support

On Apr 28, 4:59 pm, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: > I haven't used the django-nonrel branch, and I'm not aware of anyone that > I know and trust that has. For what it's worth, I am currently using django-nonrel and its companions djangoappengine, djangotoolbox, and

Re: NoSQL support

On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 6:32 AM, Waldemar Kornewald wrote: > As suggested by Russell, I'll try to explain the reasoning behind > every proposed change on the wiki page in the next few days. That would be a huge help. I'm trying to wrap my brain around the megadiff Jonas

Re: NoSQL support

64 url encoding and password resetting code is required for MongoDB and other NoSQL DBs which have a string-based primary key. The old code would only work with integers. The file upload code is required to support App Engine's Blobstore. That one indeed isn't exactly related to NoSQL support, but it's

Re: NoSQL support

On Apr 28, 2:36 am, "Jonas H." wrote: > For anyone who's interested, here's the complete diff of Django-nonrel > against Django 1.3:http://paste.pocoo.org/show/379546/ Are you sure this diff is correct? From a quick look over that diff, it seems there's a bunch of seemingly

Re: NoSQL support

On 04/28/2011 08:59 AM, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: To be completely frank, from my perspective, the code is an unknown quantity at this point. It *might* be fine -- but it might not, on anything from a scale from "needs minor work" to "needs to be rebuilt". I simply don't know, and any process

Re: NoSQL support

Speaking of bottlenecks ... imho Waldemar and Thomas should be core devs in addition to the proposed process of getting more/better community review on Django- nonrel before a merge into trunk can happen. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django

Re: NoSQL support

Speaking of bottlenecks ... imho Waldemar and Thomas should be core devs in addition to the proposed process of getting more/better community review on Django- nonrel before a merge into trunk can happen. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django

Re: NoSQL support

On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 3:18 AM, legutierr wrote: > + 100 on this (oh, wait, do I not get that many votes? +10 then). > > Waldemar and Thomas (and the rest of the people contributing to django- > nonrel) have worked very hard to advance Django and expand its use > into new

Re: NoSQL support

+ 100 on this (oh, wait, do I not get that many votes? +10 then). Waldemar and Thomas (and the rest of the people contributing to django- nonrel) have worked very hard to advance Django and expand its use into new spheres. It would be great to see their work recognized by the core team, and to

NoSQL support

Hi, we (the Django-nonrel developers) would like to work on official NoSQL support for Django. We'd like to focus only on databases similar to App Engine, MongoDB, and Cassandra 0.7+ with secondary indexes. Our goal is not to support all native query features of key-value stores like Redis. I've

Re: NoSQL Support for the ORM

On Apr 9, 9:06 am, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: > No - Array types aren't available everywhere. However, it would be > nice to be able to support them (even if not in core); if this GSoC > lays the groundwork to make this possible, then it's worth looking at. We already

Re: NoSQL Support for the ORM

On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 11:03 PM, flo...@gmail.com wrote: > On Apr 8, 12:32 pm, Waldemar Kornewald wrote: > >> What I'm proposing is not a complete emulation of all features at all >> cost, but simply an automation of the things that are possible and in >>

Re: [GSOC] NoSQL Support for the ORM

On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 5:55 AM, Waldemar Kornewald wrote: > On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 5:22 PM, Alex Gaynor wrote: >>> Other issues that spring to mind: >>> >>>  * What about nonSQL datatypes? List/Set types are a common feature of >>> Non-SQL backends,

Re: NoSQL Support for the ORM

On Apr 8, 12:32 pm, Waldemar Kornewald wrote: > What I'm proposing is not a complete emulation of all features at all > cost, but simply an automation of the things that are possible and in > wide use on nonrel DBs. Moreover, you'd only use these features where > actually

Re: NoSQL Support for the ORM

Hi Waldemar, Alex, why you didn't do different threads for the different issues? :\ Regarding getting .filter() to work, I suggest we will use explicit and implicit indexes, something like this: class User(models.Model): username = models.CharField(max_length=200, db_index=True) #

NoSQL Support for the ORM

On Thursday, April 8, 2010, flo...@gmail.com wrote: > On Apr 8, 10:50 am, Javier Guerra Giraldez wrote: > >> A: use the _same_ ORM with NoSQL backends.  then it's important to >> provide (almos) every capability of the current ORM, even if they have >> to be

Re: NoSQL Support for the ORM

On Apr 8, 10:50 am, Javier Guerra Giraldez wrote: > A: use the _same_ ORM with NoSQL backends.  then it's important to > provide (almos) every capability of the current ORM, even if they have > to be emulated when the backend doesn't provide it natively. To do this would

Re: NoSQL Support for the ORM

On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 12:08 PM, Waldemar Kornewald wrote: >> No, we don't.  People are desiging there data in ways that fit their >> datastore. If all people did was implement a relational model in >> userland code on top of non-relational databases then they'd really be >>

Re: NoSQL Support for the ORM

On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 6:14 PM, Alex Gaynor wrote: > On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 4:43 PM, Waldemar Kornewald > wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 5:12 PM, Alex Gaynor wrote: >>> No.  I am vehemently opposed to attempting to

Re: [GSOC] NoSQL Support for the ORM

ly, having a mentor who is knowledgeable about >> them.  The reality is under the GSOC time constraints attempting to >> write complete backends for multiple databases would probably be >> impossible. > > Well, you might be able to quickly adapt the MongoDB backend to GAE &

Re: NoSQL Support for the ORM

On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 4:43 PM, Waldemar Kornewald wrote: > On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 5:12 PM, Alex Gaynor wrote: >> No.  I am vehemently opposed to attempting to extensively emulate the >> features of a relational database in a non-relational one.  

Re: [GSOC] NoSQL Support for the ORM

ilar > because they take very different approaches to indexing and if this > isn't abstracted and automated NoSQL support doesn't really make sense > with Django. OTOH, if the goal is to make an abstraction around their > indexes they can all look very similar from the perspective of > Djang

Re: [GSOC] NoSQL Support for the ORM

, but this highly depends on what problem we agree to solve. If we only provide exactly the features that each DB supports natively, they'll appear dissimilar because they take very different approaches to indexing and if this isn't abstracted and automated NoSQL support doesn't really make sense wi

Re: NoSQL Support for the ORM

On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 5:12 PM, Alex Gaynor wrote: > No.  I am vehemently opposed to attempting to extensively emulate the > features of a relational database in a non-relational one.  People > talk about the "object relational" impedance mismatch, much less the >

Re: [GSOC] NoSQL Support for the ORM

On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 2:19 PM, lasizoillo wrote: > 2010/4/7 Alex Gaynor : > >>  * 2 weeks - begin working on a backend for a non-relational database >> (probably >>   MongoDB) > > Pymodels[1] have backends for MogoDB and Tokyo Tyrant/Cabinet. Maybe >

Re: [GSOC] NoSQL Support for the ORM

2010/4/7 Alex Gaynor : >  * 2 weeks - begin working on a backend for a non-relational database > (probably >   MongoDB) Pymodels[1] have backends for MogoDB and Tokyo Tyrant/Cabinet. Maybe some things can be reused in backend. http://bitbucket.org/neithere/pymodels/

Re: [GSOC] NoSQL Support for the ORM

On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 6:47 AM, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: > On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 8:11 AM, Alex Gaynor wrote: >> Non-relational database support for the Django ORM >> == >> >> Note:  I am withdrawing

Re: NoSQL Support for the ORM

On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 4:43 AM, Waldemar Kornewald wrote: > Hey Alex, > > On Apr 7, 2:11 am, Alex Gaynor wrote: >> Non-relational database support for the Django ORM >> == >> >> Note:  I am withdrawing

[GSOC] NoSQL Support for the ORM

Non-relational database support for the Django ORM == Note: I am withdrawing my proposal on template compilation. Another student has expressed some interest in working on it, and in any event I am now more interested in working on this project.