On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Michael Bayer <mike...@zzzcomputing.com> wrote: >> I can't remember everywhere I've seen things. There are few libraries >> using SQLAlchemy yet. I mainly wanted to avoid a future mess if >> everyone did things in different ways, and then had trouble >> interoperating. The API you've suggested sounds the most flexible; it >> won't get into anyone's way but it's there if you want it, and it can >> scale to multiple datbases, Bases, and Sessions. > > I only ask because you know it's really hard to design a system that we're > going to recommend for everyone, without a good set of concrete examples of > what they need. You know we've been around this block a bunch.
Yes, in general I agree. But in this case there needs to be something, and we have to anticipate where it might go. A well-designed API is ready for future use cases, as I think has been proven with Python and Pyramid in several ways. But that's why I'm asking everyone what they want for database interoperability, so that we can dig out as many of those use cases as we can, and look for potential conflicts. -- Mike Orr <sluggos...@gmail.com> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pylons-discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to pylons-discuss@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pylons-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en.
