My 2c worth: I'd like to see SQLObject 2.0 built on top of SQLAlchemy.
Then one would have the best of both worlds: SQLAlchemy's cleaner
internals and SQLObjects ease of use.
Schiavo
Simon
--
oo
[ hodgestar.za.net ]
In the end, we all choose our own moralit
On 3/18/06, Daniel Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Alan Franzoni wrote:> Now, my 2c: do we really need *two* ORMs in the Python community?I agree with this sentiment as well. If voting would change anything, I'd vote to have SQLObject2 built as a layer on top of SQLAlchemy. If this is not possibl
Alan Franzoni wrote:
Now, my 2c: do we really need *two* ORMs in the Python community?
I agree with this sentiment as well. If voting would change anything, I'd vote
to have SQLObject2 built as a layer on top of SQLAlchemy. If this is not
possible, let's hear the reasons so we can fix them.
On 3/18/06, Alan Franzoni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Now, my 2c: do we really need *two* ORMs in the Python community?I agree that we do not.But really this sentiment should be directed towards Ian Bicking; he's finally (implicitly) admitted that SqlObject is a dead end, but instead of throwing his
Hello! I hope this message may help. I'm an ex-SQLObject user and now
SQLAlchemy user. I just read on the SO group that sqlobject 0.x is being
dropped and a probably backwards incompatible SQLObject 2 is being
developed.
I think SQLAlchemy is more complex but more coherent, and the recent
ActiveMa
