On Feb 19, 2008 4:50 PM, Michael Bayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Feb 19, 2008, at 4:57 PM, Duncan McGreggor wrote: > > > On Feb 19, 2008 3:56 PM, Duncan McGreggor > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> I like storm for the API. It's simple and it makes sense. It doesn't > >> try to do too much for me either. To be fair, I also like SQLAlchemy > >> for the API, but that's because other ORMs just didn't fit my brain > >> and SQLAlchemy was the closest I could get. > > > > Oops -- my apologies to the SQLAlchemy team, but that was supposed to > > be past tense "liked SQLAlchemy" not present tense. > > > but we're talking about the API as of late version 0.2, correct ?
If I recall, it was 0.1. I haven't used SA since late 2005/early 2006. > A typical Storm ORM conversation > looks pretty similar to a SQLAlchemy ORM conversation (and this was > widely observed when Storm was first announced). I have spent more time in Divmod's Axiom (not an ORM, but an object db built on sqlite) than SA, so I notice those similarities more than any others. > In my Pycon presentation I'll be covering how SA 0.2 was an extremely > abrupt transition from 0.1 which made for a fragile API and codebase > at that time, why the change was necessary, and how we went about > becoming a more usable and reliable tool by the late 0.3 series. Yeah, I got caught in the unenviable position with a client (KCRW in LA) where I implemented a solution using 0.1 and they didn't have the funds to lay down for the upgrade to 0.2, so they got stuck with a SA 0.1 fork with back-ported fixes :-( It's nice to hear that the API has stabilized, though :-) d -- storm mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/storm
