On Wed, 2002-04-03 at 03:24, Stephan Diehl wrote: > This looks quite nice. Would you mind, if I use your db.py utilities?
Sure, you can consider that file public domain. DB API seems very awkward to me, even for the most simple database access... maybe it's more memory efficient or something, I dunno. Maybe it's based on C libraries that look that way for some important reason... > Unfortunatelly (that's unfortunatelly for me :-) it is not exactly what I > (and Magnus from what I gathered) have in mind. > At the moment, I'm using StandaloneZODB for a project. For some reasons (they > might be completely unfounded) I feel a little bit uncomfortable with that. > Anyway, I have a little Store object that provide access to the objects in > the db and gives you some possibilities to query the db (the objects are > grouped according to their class and can get queried via "filter"). > For that, I want to write a replacement. > The requirements are: > - the python objects don't know anything about SQL (o.k., they need to be a > subclass of some "Persistence" class > - the store has to put objects into the db and recreate them from the db I wanted something that wrapped a normal database, not a database that wrapped normal Python objects. I'd be a little uncomfortable with ZODB too, as when I was playing around more seriously with Smalltalk the image file (which was ZODB-like, only more all-inclusive) always felt as it was slowly decaying... traditional relational databases are restrictive in a way that keeps the database quite consistent. Ian _______________________________________________ Webware-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webware-discuss
