>>>> A show-stopper would be that TG2 uses by default the repoze.what SQL and >>>> quickstart plugins, which only support SQLAlchemy. So supporting SO in >>>> TG2 >>>> would also mean porting both plugins to SO. >>>> >>> >>> Also I don't think this should belong to the core. it should live in >>> tgext.sqlobject, and hook into tg2 to replace the modules. >> >> Why do you think so? If integration of sqlobject is achievable I'd say >> SO and SA are on the same footing, just as was the case with tg1. Why >> should SA be favored? >> > Because TurboGears is a "best of framework" and SQLAlchemy is far > superior, the only reason TG1.x had support for SA and SO was because > of transition that transition is over. > >> I'm building on the assumption that support for sqlobject is doable in >> a clean and elegant way. I'm not saying it's easy (in fact, until >> today I thought it will never be done), but supposing that the code is >> there, in that case, why do you think SA should be singled out? > > Because one of the goals of TG2 is to keep the core small. One of our > mistakes with the TG1 code base was to add way too many things to the > core, so the moment one part of it fail TG was blamed. Which is very > bad PR. Specially went something was added to the core and the > original author was gone, then no one wanted to maintain the code and > it just keep making bad PR. > > As for SQLObject the project it's one a small bit of what it ones was, > why will you want to use a project that is less in every aspect than > the default? I can only think of 3 reasons > - you have tons of code that depends on it, in that case maintaining > tgext.sqlobject will mean less work than migrating to SA.
This reason is my reason. > - you are just lazy > - you don't want to migrate to 1.1, 1.5 These two don't apply :) > the main reason for 1.1 is genshi and SA support, the main reason for > 1.5 is CP3 support, to me it seems none of the core developers has (to > this day) a big investment in SO and if they do they are fine with 1.0 > or 1.1 for that particular app. It certainly can be true that the core dev team has no big investment in SO. If they do, don't you think they would be happy to use the added benefits of tg2 for their SO-based tg1 apps? > So from that I conclude that adding SO > to the core will be a mistake as it will rapidly go unmaintained, and > people will complain they are no docs or no example or etc, etc and > that will create bad more PR. I'd say the only people who will use SO in tg2 are the ones who already used it in tg1. This is because you are right, why would a new tg2 user choose SO over SA when SA is fancier and newer? But those people who have heavily invested in SO will not be the ones who will complain, simply because they are familiar with SO already. Final thoughts: I can clearly see that SA is the fancy new alternative, it's sexy and hyped and not without reason. But this doesn't mean that SO's quality went down relative to what it was 1 or 2 years ago. It was pretty good for what it was designed and it still is. It doesn't suit everyone but it surely suits many people. It doesn't have certain features that can be considered useful, but if an app doesn't need those features it's not a disadvantage. Similar example: vim. Many people (including me) still use vim although it's considered ancient, dead, outdated, non-fancy, non-sexy. But it's pretty good in what it was meant to do and the mere existence of fancier and sexier alternatives doesn't decrease it's quality. Some people like this, some people like something else. Cheers, Daniel -- Psss, psss, put it down! - http://www.cafepress.com/putitdown --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
