Re: [SQLObject] Re: [Sqlalchemy-users] SQLObject and SQLAlchemy

Michael Bayer wrote: There are currently two ways to construct SQL expressions with SQLAlchemy without any knowledge of a database connection or implementation. One is to use the ProxyEngine, which receives a connect() call when you are ready to connect it to something, which occurs only w

Re: [SQLObject] Re: [Sqlalchemy-users] SQLObject and SQLAlchemy

There are currently two ways to construct SQL expressions with SQLAlchemy without any knowledge of a database connection or implementation. One is to use the ProxyEngine, which receives a connect() call when you are ready to connect it to something, which occurs only within the scope of t

Re: [SQLObject] Re: [Sqlalchemy-users] SQLObject and SQLAlchemy

Jonathan Ellis wrote: I've been trying to keep these things extracted from SQLObject2 in the form of SQL-API ( http://svn.sqlobject.org/sqlapi/trunk). I would certainly be interested in reuse on that level, and I'm very open to suggestions and changes, or whatever. It's intended

Re: [SQLObject] Re: [Sqlalchemy-users] SQLObject and SQLAlchemy

On 3/21/06, Ian Bicking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I haven't said SQLObject is a dead end.  I think the codebase needsrethinking, as well as thinking about what its scope should really be.I'll just refer you to my clp discussion with Steve vis a vis the semantics of "dead end." :) And "fragmenting

[SQLObject] Re: [Sqlalchemy-users] SQLObject and SQLAlchemy

Asheesh Laroia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Let me just chime in with my idea of the holy grail here: Assuming the Python > code is stored in SVN, the Python code should detect what SVN revision the > database is consistent with. Knowing that, it could generate the migration > code via the diffs

Re: [SQLObject] Re: [Sqlalchemy-users] SQLObject and SQLAlchemy

On Tue, 21 Mar 2006, Justin Johnson wrote: Lastly, it would be great if there could be some collaboration on a combined administration/migration tool, similar in scope to sqlobject-admin. ORM-specific administration isn't really very useful -- especially when you can't be sure the ORM descr

Re: [SQLObject] Re: [Sqlalchemy-users] SQLObject and SQLAlchemy

Justin Johnson wrote: > Lastly, it would be great if there could be some collaboration on a > combined administration/migration tool, similar in scope to > sqlobject-admin. ORM-specific administration isn't really very useful > -- especially when you can't be sure the ORM describes anything

Re: [SQLObject] Re: [Sqlalchemy-users] SQLObject and SQLAlchemy

> Lastly, it would be great if there could be some collaboration on a > combined administration/migration tool, similar in scope to > sqlobject-admin. ORM-specific administration isn't really very useful > -- especially when you can't be sure the ORM describes anything similar > to what some leg

Re: [SQLObject] Re: [Sqlalchemy-users] SQLObject and SQLAlchemy

Jonathan Ellis wrote: 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) a

Re: [SQLObject] Re: [Sqlalchemy-users] SQLObject and SQLAlchemy

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

[SQLObject] Re: [Sqlalchemy-users] SQLObject and SQLAlchemy

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

[SQLObject] Re: [Sqlalchemy-users] SQLObject and SQLAlchemy

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.

[SQLObject] Re: [Sqlalchemy-users] SQLObject and SQLAlchemy

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