On Sep 20, 2006, at 9:18 AM, Diez B. Roggisch wrote: >> This seems simple when you start down this path... eventually, you >> just end up with a less-useful ORM. I'd either go completely with an >> ORM or stick to SQL with access functions. Once you start making >> things try to look like objects, you're just writing your own ORM. > > Certainly that was the least desireable option. And what I had in > mind was > more or less "only" sql with a thin layer for e.g. accessing a row > as object > with attribute names and type-mungering, but not relations.
Ahh, yeah, that's reasoable. 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
