Il Sat, 18 Mar 2006 20:38:07 -0500, Michael Bayer ha scritto: > exposed to this whole "oh no theres TOO MANY WEB FRAMEWORKS" thing
I think this is the short version - the full meaning of that phrase should be 'There're too many similar web frameworks taking the same approach and which are aimed at the same target and use-case', which I still think to be True. I think Myghty is quite different from many frameworks around (namely TG and Django; I won't pretend having tested all python frameworks around) - it's pretty 'low level', and lets you choose an orm if you like any - I bet it could be used 'directly' through a DB adapter without problems. > looking to be such, who need tools that will grow with their own > needs and never be unexpectedly let down by some architectural > shortcoming, rather than those who seek something drop-dead simple > and quick at the expense of scalability and flexibility which they > believe they'll never need (or are unaware they will need). That's part of the problem. When I started writing my RDBMS, I had never heard of SA yet, and I found no real problem in using SO. I pretty liked it. But then, some problems and some unexpected behaviours arose. When I tried SA, I thought it might have been the solution to many of my problems, and, at the present day, it is. Reimplementing my RDBMS through SA was not so difficult - most things are the very same, many became simpler (i.e. building a new object with SO required a dictionary to be built first and then passed to the SO constructor, while in SA inserts and updates share the very same interface) and others I have improved. But, when reimplementing my database schema using SA ( I could use schema introspection, of course, but since I'm developing a new app I really prefer having there all the code ), my thoughts were: this SA is wonderful, but in many cases it could be easier to write a db schema; there could be a way to define a 'standard' behaviour to write a schema in a quicker way. Then, if I need a special behaviour for a certain class, I can write it 'fully' on my own. Unluckily, the ActiveMapper extension seems to have completed when I was about finished with my schema reimplementation ^_^ I have not the right, nor the will, to tell anyone, especially people which are far better programmers than I am, how or what should they code. But when I read about SO2 announcement, I thought that also Ian Bicking might have found some issues with his own 'child'. Now, I'll rewrite my question: do we really need, in the Python community, two ORMs (SA and SO2) that might end up being *that similar* one another? There're PyDO, PyDO2 and the Django ORM as well, but they have a different twist and they have reached a substantial maturity; I'm concerned with SO and SA because they look the most promising and feature-packed (or packable) to me, and they're still being actively developed. If it's possible to have a SO2 mapping on SA, it's now or never, hence my idea. -- Alan Franzoni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Togli .xyz dalla mia email per contattarmi. To contact me, remove .xyz from my email address. - GPG Key Fingerprint: 5C77 9DC3 BD5B 3A28 E7BC 921A 0255 42AA FE06 8F3E ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting language that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live webcast and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding territory! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ Sqlalchemy-users mailing list Sqlalchemy-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sqlalchemy-users
