On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 11:34 PM, Daniel Fetchinson
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>> It's clear that the tg team can not make the transition from sqlobject
>>>> to sqlalchemy any easier, so I'm definitely not arguing for that. What
>>>> I'm saying is that if many users are in the same boat (transition to
>>>> 2.x from 1.x would be easy from a framework point of view, but hard
>>>> from an ORM point of view because of the sqlobject - sqlalchemy
>>>> transition) then perhaps not so much emphasis needs to go into
>>>> creating stepping stones such as 1.1 and 1.5. But maybe many other
>>>> users are not ORM limited, they perhaps really need stepping stones
>>>> for the framework itself.
>>>>
>>
>> You got that wrong. TG1.1 default ORM is SQLAlchemy. And SO is a
>> second class citizen there.
>>
>> The main purpose of TG1.1 (from a migration point of view) is to get
>> you in shape for TG2.0
>
> My argument is exactly that 1.1 does not help me at all to get in
> shape with 2.0. The reason is what I mentioned: the single limiting
> factor for me to upgrade to 2.0 is the fact that SO will not work with
> 2.0. Again: I'm not at all limited by the cherrypy to pylons
> transition because my app rarely uses any cherrypy internals. But it
> heavily uses SO and migrating that to SA is hard.
>
> I believe any 1.x user who uses SO heavily (any data driven app will
> be heavily integrated with the chosen ORM) will not be helped by 1.1
> to get in shape with 2.0.
>

I'm sorry but you are late to this argument several years, SO -> SA
was decided at least 2 years ago. You are probably one of the flew
users that still uses SO. I monitor this mailing list daily and we
barely see a SO question these days.

>> Now keep in mind 1.0 can mean several things. Going from "stock" TG1.0
>> to TG2.0 will be a real problem, because you have to change all mayor
>> component, (ORM,template and "backend") TG1.1 deals with the two
>> simplest, TG2 deals with the complex one.
>
> You are working under the assumption that the ORM and template changes
> are simple while the backend change is hard. I'm telling you that this
> can be true for your apps and of course it can be true for many other
> people, but not for everybody. For example it's definitely not true
> for me and I believe I'm not alone.
>
Trust me it is, in template/ORM you have 1-1 equivalents, in backend
you simply don't. Most things works completely different (URL
dispatcher, sessions, "tools"/"filters" simply don't exist, many more)

> I agree that the template change is really simple, so I'm not talking
> about that at all, we are in full agreeement, kid to genshi is almost
> trivial.
>
>> Maybe for you SO->SA is a big transition, but it's nowere near close
>> to CP->pylons.
>
> Again, this depends on the app itself. If it's a data driven app that
> doesn't touch any (or only few) CP internals, the CP -> pylons change
> is easy and the SO -> SA transition is hard.
>
>> In fact moving from SO -SA shouldn't be more than a day of work.
>
> This again depends on the app. If it has complex and extensive use of
> SO, this statement is simply not true.
>

again it shouldn't take you more than a day. Just out of curiosity how
many SO classes/queries do you have?

>> Assuming you already learned SA.
>>
>> Now for people that (like TG1) went deep down into CP2 stuff, which
>> was needed for many things, going to TG2 will probably be a hard
>> re-write (this is the main reason we are commited to support 1.x in
>> 2009), keep in mind I'm talking about BIG apps here.
>>
>> Therefore I strongly suggest everyone to move to TG1.1 first (or TG1.0
>> + genshi + SA) and then to TG2.0
>>
>> On the other hand SQLObject, sadly is a dying framework,
>
> What makes you say that? Support for SO on the mailing list is among
> the best ones I've seen for any open source project. There are
> frequent releases in 3 separate branches. Submitted patches get
> applied fast, bug reports are dealt with equally fast.
>

mailing list traffic, only one maintainer, as for the bug reports I
don't share the felling back when SO was default in TG, many bug
reports where answered with "please provide a plain SO test", that was
when we asked for cooperation.

Don't get me wrong Oleg is a great guy and his support is great, I
don't complain about that but the reality is in place.

On the other hand SO has very hard design issues, I won't number them
he was that is OT, but none of those are present in SA.

>> it's hard to work with and hard to debug,
>
> Maybe it's hard to work with for you, but I'm sure you realize that
> others might think otherwise.
>

No it is hard to work with, SO has the bad reputation of making
complex things close to impossible. One example use a pre existing DB,
another have a table with no id.

>> I don't think we should add support for it in the core of tg2.
>
> I personally would be very happy if support for it is added to tg2. Of
> course, if the dev team doesn't think so, I'll live with the 1.x
> branch (and hope for a fork).
>

as far as I can tell none of the current core developers has a strong
investment in SO, therefore it's not on their interest to do so. That
said if you are serious about this we'll get you setup with svn access
+ provide all the help needed so you will become a core contributor
and maintain the SO related code.

>> If someone is willing to provide a
>> tgext.sqlobject package I'm fine with it, but I strongly disagree with
>> it being in the core.
>
> I'm actively trying to change your mind :)

I don't have the final say but no, this was the biggest problem TG1
had. I won't dedicate time to support it, write docs, write tests,
port features, etc, etc, etc. A tgext.sqlobject project is a good
compromise it will love as long as people will use it, it won't
confuse TG goals or marketing or users.

>
> 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to