Ed Suominen wrote:
The question I would ask is this: What does SQLAlchemy lack that is sought in this proposed SQL-API, and how much demand is there for that functionality?
It's not what SQLAlchemy lacks, it's what it has. It's too much all at once. It's scope does not fit what I want, and I'm pretty sure I'm not alone on that; clearly that opinion is not universally held (certainly not on sqlalchemy-users), but it's also unrealistic to imagine that everyone is going to use SQLAlchemy. But there are things everyone can agree on; everyone agrees on db-api, for all its flaws, because it's easier to build on than replace. I think there is functionality not currently in db-api which can be similarly universal.
It's this scope that defines SQL-API, not the code -- if all the code I've written for (or copied into) sqlapi gets blown away and replaced (which is not impossible), that would not bother me at all. I'm not possessive about the design or implementation, which is why I would be quite happy to have Igor or Clark or anyone else contribute to this.
-- Ian Bicking / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / http://blog.ianbicking.org ------------------------------------------------------- Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ Sqlalchemy-users mailing list Sqlalchemy-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sqlalchemy-users
