On Sat, 2012-08-04 at 20:26 -0700, shearich...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > Just out of curiosity, why do you eschew ORMs? > Good question ! > I'm not anti-ORM (in fact in many circs I'm quite pro-ORM) but for > some time I've been working with a client who doesn't want ORMs used > (they do have quite good reasons for this although probably not as > good as they think).
So call the ORM something else. > I was interested to know, given that was the case, how you might - in > Python, go about structuring an app which didn't use an ORM but which > did use a RDBMS fairly intensively. You'd reinvent the ORM calling it something else - because an ORM is what you are describing. This is just a case of those-who-will-not-use-are-doomed-to-recreate. > I take your point about having "rolled my own ORM" - lol - but I can > assure you what's in that 'bardb' is a pretty thin layer over the SQL > and nothing like the, pretty amazing, functionality of, for instance, > >SQLAlchemy. This implies that SQLAlchemy is 'fat'. I don't see any evidence of that. It is comprehensive so when you encounter something you can be confident it is up to the challange.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
