Hi Malthe. Kapil has confirmed the licensing is ZPL with a version bump to 0.5.2 with a change in the headers, etc. I am anxious to experiment with dobbin since it looks so straight forward and nice. I guess I see traversal and containers as possible issues but will be interested in potential solutions. Trails for grok is one possible solution for traversal but will be curious to see approaches for replacing containers.

Regards
David

David Pratt wrote:
Hi Malthe. Perhaps I am wrong about the licensing situation. I guess its a bit confusing since pypi indicates GPL and package ZPL. I guess I should contact Kapil for clarification if I am interested in experimenting here. Many thanks.

Regards,
David

    name="ore.alchemist",
    version="0.5.1",
    url="http://code.google.com/p/zope-alchemist";,
    install_requires=['setuptools', 'transaction'],
    packages=find_packages('src', exclude=["*.tests"]),
    package_dir= {'':'src'},
    namespace_packages=['ore'],
    package_data = {
    '': ['*.txt', '*.zcml', '*.pt'],
    },
    zip_safe=False,
    author='Kapil Thangavelu',
    author_email='[EMAIL PROTECTED]',
    description="""\
ore.alchemist contains an integration of sqlalchemy into the
Zope App server environment. It can be used with Zope2, Zope3 or
standalone.
""",
    license='ZPL',
    keywords="zope zope3",
    )

Malthe Borch wrote:
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.

\malthe

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


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


_______________________________________________
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  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