On Fri, 2006-07-14 at 10:46, Jonathan Ellis wrote: > On 7/14/06, Jonathan LaCour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Really, when you think about it, defining the schema in the > code is > more adherent to DRY than autoloading, since instead of having > 1 DDL > script for every database you support, you just have it stated > in code > one time ;) > > Except you still cant define triggers etc from SA. (And I hope that > never feature creeps its way in!)
Additionally that is a programmer centric view, something that would only be applicable to small projects. Once you get 10s of developers involved chaos ensues until a DBA is appointed to analyze, normalize, and document the data requirements. Even in small systems the idea that the code has the definition breaks down quickly. I.E. Deploying program "A" which is up and running, now you want to add program "B" which needs a couple more fields. If you don't have the time to go back and update/change "A" (including testing and perhaps release management) and "A" tries to enforce the structure of the tables, "B" will fail (and then you refactor, moving the definition back out of the code ;-). ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
