Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
> I think it's clear that I'm neither looking for book-tips, nor for an
> academic discussion.
I think what Michael is trying to convey is that the "simple statement"
that you are looking for confirmation on has lots of highly "academic"
baggage relating to what programmers call "design patterns." In
order for you to understand and interpret the simple statement, you
really need to understand the concepts of design patterns, and very
specifically the Active Record and Data Mapper design patterns.
> I'm just looking for:
>
> b) a simple confirmation of my conclusion:
>
>>> SQLAlchemy (DataMapper) can implement SQLObject (Active Record)
>>> SQLObject (Active Record) cannot implement SQLAlchemy (DataMapper)
Your conclusion is misguided because you don't have any understanding
of the underlying concepts presented. Michael's suggestion to read
the Fowler book is one way for you to learn about the concepts, then to
understand the simple statement, and finally to draw a conclusion.
If you aren't interested in buying the book, I hear that Google is a
great way to learn. If you aren't interested in learning, then I
suggest that you stop trying to interpret people's words.
If you want a simple statement relating to SQLObject vs. SQLAlchemy
that you don't need to learn to understand, here is one for you:
SQLAlchemy is more flexible than SQLObject.
Anything much deeper than that is going to require you to brush up a
bit on some fairly high-level concepts, like design patterns.
Best of luck!
--
Jonathan LaCour
http://cleverdevil.org
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sqlalchemy" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
