Jonathan Ellis wrote: > "Hey guys, you have a working codebase that does everything we need, > but some of us have a severe case of NIH and would rather you spend > a huge amount of effort conforming to our (vapor) api rather than > build on yours." > > Honestly that is how SQL-API comes across to me. >
Well said. I have to agree. It's very hard for people to do, but sometimes you have to just look away from the incompatible work you've done and appreciate the merits of a different solution. Certainly, that could be true of the people working on and using SQLAlchemy, but I think in this case it's not. I've been there and done that, by the way. Several years ago, I spent probably over a hundred hours working on yet another python web framework that I never formally released. Finally, I abandoned it and went with something much simpler because I found that I really didn't need all the goodies I spent so much time coming up with. Anyone interested in seeing the carnage (I'm not sure why you would be) can comparing http://foss.eepatents.com/DynamicSite/browser/branches/combo-refactoring (elegant, thorough, and abandoned) to http://foss.eepatents.com/DynamicSite/browser/trunk (Post-YAGNI revelation). The question I would ask is this: What does SQLAlchemy lack that is sought in this proposed SQL-API, and how much demand is there for that functionality? Best regards, Ed Suominen ------------------------------------------------------- Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ Sqlalchemy-users mailing list Sqlalchemy-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sqlalchemy-users
