Thanks for the tips, however I mean this DB we have is pure objects, there are no tables. So there isn't much of a logical leap to strap python on top of it, however you can't use and SQL. I guess I was wondering how tied to SQL SA is? If it's fundamental to the core, then I'm out of luck. But it different engines can supply their own navigation logic, then it might be worthwhile.
On Feb 9, 12:16 am, svilen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > how much OO u want? > > There is SA, which has ORM layer over sql, so can become a somewhat > object persistency. > There are turboentity/activemapper, currently joining together, which > are simple declarative layer on top of SA. > Then here is this 'sawrapper' of mine, which is also declarative and > wider/deeper than them, automaticaly handling all inheritances / > decomposition and references and now able to convert plain python > funcs (of your objects) into SA clauses. It may join the above 2 one > day - if they wish. > > Then i have another layer on top which adds protocol-like static-type > semantics...http://linuxteam.sistechnology.com/o2rm/sawrap0209.tar.bz2 > > None of them is 100% OO. > > For a simple OOdbs, checkhttp://www.garret.ru/~knizhnik/compare.html > > > Has anyone tried making an engine for an OODB? My company is > > heavily ties into Versant, and we'd love to use SQLAlchemy if > > possible. Is this even a valid thought? Versant doesn't support > > SQL, most of its calls are graph navigation. getchild(), > > getparent(), getattr() etc... > > > Is this worth pursuing, and has anyone tried it? --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sqlalchemy" group. To post to this group, send email to sqlalchemy@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
