On Jun 15, 2006, at 12:44 PM, Jorge Vargas wrote:On 6/15/06, Kevin Dangoor < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
One of the patches we have for SQLAlchemy 0.2 support in TG switches
from using ActiveMapper for the identity classes to using the straight
SQLAlchemy model. The argument that I can see for making that change
is that ActiveMapper is an "extension", so it's not quite as supported
as the standard data mapper approach. The disadvantage is that it's
more verbose and may not be as easy to grok for new users.
What opinions do you all have?
why is this based on identity only? I think we should scrap ActiveMapper all together from TG , don;t get me wrong I like the work Jonathan put in there but I think it hides the potential SA has behind the fact of making it easy for new people.TG doesn't have any particular ties to ActiveMapper to be scrapped other than identity.
yes that is what I was refering, not making it require in any part of TG, so if for any reason you don't want to use it don't. On the other we may set ActiveMapper as default use so new people can dive into TG without problem but there should be docs/warnings explaining how to migrate awat from ActiveMapper, when/if the time comes.
SQLObject (and Rails' ActiveRecord) may not have as powerful a model as SQLAlchemy, but they are super easy to use. If you're creating a brand new database, the Active Record pattern can work great.
that's true, the feature I like the most of SQLObject is that I can create the tables in a quick brainstom and not worry about details, but then it starts giving troubles when columns need to be added,etc,etc.
ActiveMapper does not (or at least need not) prevent you from growing into all of SQLAlchemy's features as you need them. If it lets you get to the Table objects, you can make your own Mappers later, if you decide you need them.The ultimate API is one that lets you start off easily and quickly and then work your way up in a nice, smooth progression as you need more capabilities. Sacrificing easy start up would discourage new users.
I agree 100% although i'll prefer hard to start but flexible then easy at start and then having to work around it.
Kevin
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TurboGears" 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/turbogears
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
