Jorge Vargas wrote: > damn your comming to spam here too... please change your tenor.
> On 10/11/06, Ilias Lazaridis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I was wondering how close could a SQLObject compatible API (fictional > > name: ObjectAlchemy) placed on top of SQLAlchemy come to SQLObject. > > > that is not possible because they are two different design patterns don't think so, see below. > > I don't remember where, but someone had suggested this a few months ago > > (development of SQLObject2 ORM layer based on SQLAlchemy, instead of > > using http://sqlobject.org/sqlapi/). This suggestion sounded very > > rational to me, but it seems the SQLObject team-lead has not followed > > it. Found one: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg01716.html And one more: http://pythonpaste.org/archives/message/20060318.172439.30ee89aa.en.html ... > SO and SA are two different approaches to solve the same problem > > http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2006-September/359164.html [...] - (some more stuff) nice link: "SQLAlchemy implements the Data Mapper pattern, of which the Active Record pattern (which SQLObject implements) is a subset." I understand this like this: SQLAlchemy (DataMapper) can implement SQLObject (Active Record) SQLObject (Active Record) cannot implement SQLAlchemy (DataMapper) . --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
