For me, starting off with SQLAlchemy, "metadata" immediately made
sense, because I'd heard and used the term before in the context of
databases. After using SQLAlchemy for a while it seems like metadata
is pretty well true to it's name. The word "catalog", on the other
hand, means nothing to me in
> > btw around probing dbcook on 0.4, i got some sort of statistical
> > idea of what is used often, some in a frightening repeatable
> > pattern:
> >
> > from sqlalchemy import *
> > db = create_engine('url')
> > meta = MetaData(db)
> >
> > and just then all else follows... in 90% of my files.
>
On 7/27/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Friday 27 July 2007 21:26:51 jason kirtland wrote:
> > svilen wrote:
> > > Anyway it may depend which audience are u targeting with these
> > > names - those who never seen an API or those for which names are
> > > important only to
On Friday 27 July 2007 21:26:51 jason kirtland wrote:
> svilen wrote:
> > Anyway it may depend which audience are u targeting with these
> > names - those who never seen an API or those for which names are
> > important only to associate them with a
> > library/version/use-case... both extremes
im more in favor of "Datasource", less so for Catalog. i still think
"Catalog" is vague, MetaData is a well known word and we can just
describe it really carefully as "MetaData is a catalog of
tables.". if you read fowlers book it *is* exactly what we are
using it as, its informatio
svilen wrote:
> Anyway it may depend which audience are u targeting with these
> names - those who never seen an API or those for which names are
> important only to associate them with a
> library/version/use-case... both extremes are equaly
> uninteresting imo.
I came around to thinking abou
Marco wrote:
>
> svilen ha scritto:
>
>> Anyway it may depend which audience are u targeting with these
>> names - those who never seen an API or those for which names
>> are important only to associate them with a
>> library/version/use-case... both extremes are equaly
>> uninteresting imo.
>>
On 7/26/07, jason kirtland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> With 0.4 almost upon us, we're coming down to the wire for big changes
> getting in- and some things are kind of "now or never".
>
> I've found myself explaining engines and metadata with some particular
> language lately, and I wondered, w
On Friday 27 July 2007 18:14:48 Michael Bayer wrote:
> On Jul 27, 2007, at 6:29 AM, avdd wrote:
> > On Jul 27, 9:45 am, jason kirtland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> This is the last opportunity
> >> for terminology changes for a while, so I offer this up for
> >> discussion.
> >
> > Does anyone
> So here's what I was thinking:
>
> datasource = create_datasource('posgresql:///test')
> connection = datasource.connect()
+0 -- I think it's moderately better than engine but for me, not
enough to want to change, though I wouldn't mind seeing it changed.
> catalog = Catalog()
> Table('foo',
On Jul 27, 2007, at 6:29 AM, avdd wrote:
>
> On Jul 27, 9:45 am, jason kirtland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> This is the last opportunity
>> for terminology changes for a while, so I offer this up for
>> discussion.
>
> Does anyone else think "orm.relation" is wrong? Perhaps
> "relationship"
What popular misunderstanding would that be?
I have no problem with any of the terminology from S/A. It all seems
unambiguous, and makes sense.
Of course, I also studied database theory, relational algebra, and
relational calculus at university.
~jon
On Jul 27, 5:29 am, avdd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Jul 27, 9:45 am, jason kirtland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is the last opportunity
> for terminology changes for a while, so I offer this up for discussion.
Does anyone else think "orm.relation" is wrong? Perhaps
"relationship" if you must have a noun, or "relates_to", etc, but
"relati
svilen ha scritto:
> Anyway it may depend which audience are u targeting with these names -
> those who never seen an API or those for which names are important
> only to associate them with a library/version/use-case... both
> extremes are equaly uninteresting imo.
>
I think targeting tho
On Friday 27 July 2007 11:44:43 Gaetan de Menten wrote:
> On 7/27/07, svilen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Friday 27 July 2007 02:45:12 jason kirtland wrote:
> >
> > - Catalog:
> > what is a sqlalchemy's metadata?
> >
> > >jason> "a catalog of tables available in the database."
> >
> > to me
On 7/27/07, svilen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 27 July 2007 02:45:12 jason kirtland wrote:
> - Catalog:
> what is a sqlalchemy's metadata?
> >jason> "a catalog of tables available in the database."
> to me it holds everything about the "subset of database structure",
> used in the app
On Friday 27 July 2007 02:45:12 jason kirtland wrote:
> So there you have it. I'm not married to this proposal by *any*
> means. The ideas gelled in my brain during the SQLAlchemy tutorial
> at OSCON, and this seems like the last opportunity to deeply
> question and reconsider what we have before
17 matches
Mail list logo
