David Pratt wrote:
Hi Malthe. z3c.dobbin looks quite good and transparent. In my opinion, this is much closer to what integration ought to look like for CA. BTW, I noticed that z3c.dobbin is zpl but ore.alchemist that it depends on is gpl. I think all the other zope flavors of sqlalchemy are under zpl. I believe there was a recent effort to bring the sqlalchemy flavors together under a single package. Not sure what progress has been made.

It's progressing, but we've also talked to Kapil about relicensing ore.alchemist to LGPL or ZPL, whichever is enough.

In any case, this direction looks like a good one. It would be interesting if dobbin could map for storm but it appears to rely heavily upon ore.alchemist.

I think it's more accurate to say that both rely heavily on SQLAlchemy. We're actually not using the table reflection functionality of ore.alchemist because we've taken a different approach to it (joining on minimal interfaces rather than mapping classes to tables). What we are using is some of the zope.schema to sqlalchemy.Column mappings and the database session environment.

I believe storms advantage is that it is faster than sqlalchemy since it doesn't have to worry about pooling connections, mappers, and more. I'd be interesting to see a similar approach with storm. Good job on this.

Thanks, I think we might've found a good approach. Currently we're test-driving it in the Vudo project. So far so good.

I don't know much about storm; at this point I must say that I care more about ease of use, mindshare and stability than just speed; we feel that SQLAlchemy gives us that. Add to it that their community is absolutely great.


Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )

Reply via email to