On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 9:40 PM, legutierr <leguti...@gmail.com> wrote: > Maybe it is inevitable that this kind of debate will crop up in any > discussion of django-nonrel or NoSQL, but I very much hope that the > philosophical debate does not detract from this fact: that django- > nonrel has demonstrated in very real terms that the actual changes > needed for Django's ORM to interface with a diverse set of non- > relational systems, are, in the general scheme of things, relatively > minor. Because they are localized and relatively minor, if those > changes do not have a negative impact on the usability and stability > of the ORM, and if they do not introduce noticeable backwards > incompatibility, that small set of changes should, in my opinion, be > considered for acceptance into Django.
Please don't get me wrong. I have worked with RDBMS for more than a decade but I alse use django-nonrel with MongoDB on a daily basis. I also think that the approach django-mongokit takes is much more natural for NoSQL data than just reusing the ORM. The ORM has no way to express complex structures and if such support is added, you will always have to choose which subset to use. For relational tables you'd get foreign keys and for non-relational you'd get structure semantics. Then we have the ModelForms that would need to start producing sub-formsets for certain structures. In the end you end up with one swiss army knife instead of a fork and a knife. While possible, it's not very convenient to dine using a swiss army knife. -- Patryk Zawadzki I solve problems. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en.
