On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 12:35:04PM -0600, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
| "Hey guys, you have a working codebase that does everything we need, but
| some of us have a severe case of NIH and would rather you spend a huge
| amount of effort conforming to our (vapor) api rather than build on yours."
Ok. Can we start out with an initial assumption that there is good-will
from all participants? We are talking about two related things, one of
them is SQL-API and the other one is Igor's SoC program, should it be
approved. For now, to keep things concrete, let us focus on the latter.
What is important about a SoC program is that it is an educational
experience from the student's perspective. Ideally it also generates
useful code: but this is not a necessary requirement for success.
There are any number of projects that can provide warm fuzzy learning experiences, but given limited funds, it only makes sense to give priority to ones that will benefit other Python developers as well.
Finally, let's address the contentious part: is this implementing Ian's
SQL-API and SQLObject? To me, this is just politics, I just don't care.
The point is not whether this is Ian's design or Mike's or yours. The point is that (like, say, ElementTree, which is going into the stdlib now) SQLAlchemy has a working codebase; a formal spec would be nice, but not really necessary. So saying, "Well, let's see if we can accomplish the same thing with a different api which may or may not consume a lot of time conforming with the New Vision" is bassackwards.
Can we all be friends now? I think it is a damn good proposal that will
move everyone forward. Can we just set the politics aside and, if it
is approved, let the person get to work?
I'm sorry if pointing out the NIH-ness of the original SQL-API came across as unfriendly and/or just muddying things up with politics, but it seems to me that it's central to how useful the proposal really is.
--
Jonathan Ellis
http://spyced.blogspot.com
