> projects should really look a little at other implementations: > > http://db.apache.org/ojb/
I see another ORM mapper. Where exactly does that differ from the ones we got in TG? > Providing a _standard_ OO interface is the most important need for the > whol python domain. Says who, based on what grounds? Java? I earn my money working with Java, and I assure you: there are plenty of different ORM-mappings available, each adhering to different standards and having proprietary extensions. And in general, the standard-centric approach to a lot of things in java has a very stifling moment to new and innovative concepts - something I certainly don't want to see in the python world to happen. > The turbogears project would benefit from a possible upgrade path to > large-scale commercial ODBMS. Again: says who? and why? ORM-mapping can be easily run against a commercial RDBMS, and for whatever reason these seem to be "the" important commercial factor - so far, ODBMS struggle to get a hold in all areas, it is not that Python has anything lacking there. The larger projects I've been working on all had an oracle running. While it is questionable if that is a wise decision, it shows that there isn't a general strive for ODBMS that python will need to succumb to. Diez --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
