Re: Django and SQLObject. Why not working together?

Discussion in 'Python' started by Ksenia Marasanova, Sep 8, 2005.

  1. 2005/9/8, Sokolov Yura <>:
    > Django Model is wonderfull. But SQLObject more flexible (and powerfull,
    > as i think, and has already more db interfaces).
    > But Django Model is tied with Django, and using Django with another OO
    > mapping is not comfortable.
    > Why do not working together? I can't understand.


    You probably want to post it on django-developers mailing list:
    http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers

    BTW, while SQLObject is very advanced, there are/were some other ORM
    mappers in python:
    http://www.thinkware.se/cgi-bin/thinki.cgi/ObjectRelationalMappersForPython
    While not all of them share the same philosophy with SQLObject, some
    do. But they are not merging together either. Just like web frameworks
    :)

    I guess it's just the joy of creating something that fits you mind and
    solves all you problems, instead of picking up something that does it
    partially and was created by another person with different views and
    philosophy.

    --
    Ksenia
     
    Ksenia Marasanova, Sep 8, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Ksenia Marasanova a écrit :
    > 2005/9/8, Sokolov Yura <>:
    >
    >>Django Model is wonderfull. But SQLObject more flexible (and powerfull,
    >>as i think, and has already more db interfaces).
    >>But Django Model is tied with Django, and using Django with another OO
    >>mapping is not comfortable.
    >>Why do not working together? I can't understand.

    >
    >

    (snip)
    >
    > BTW, while SQLObject is very advanced, there are/were some other ORM
    > mappers in python:
    > http://www.thinkware.se/cgi-bin/thinki.cgi/ObjectRelationalMappersForPython
    > While not all of them share the same philosophy with SQLObject, some
    > do. But they are not merging together either. Just like web frameworks
    > :)
    >
    > I guess it's just the joy of creating something that fits you mind and
    > solves all you problems, instead of picking up something that does it
    > partially and was created by another person with different views and
    > philosophy.
    >


    Also, there's something like darwinism at play here. Yes, there are a
    lot of concurrent ORM/Templating/Web Publishing/GUI/Whatnot projects
    around, but I guess only the best of them will survive - eventually
    'absorbing' what's good in the others.

    I also noticed something like a 'converging evolution' scheme in Python
    these days. It strikes me that more and more frameworks seems to be
    based on concepts like intelligent properties assembled in schemas
    (Zope, Plone, Django, BasicProperties, SQLObjects...), interface
    adaptation (PEAK, Zope3, ...) and 'configurable polymorphism' (PEAK,
    Zope3, ...). Strange enough, I was developping a similar solution for a
    higher-level LDAP api when I noticed this... It seems to me that it has
    to do with recent evolutions of Python (decriptors, decorators,
    metaclasses made simple etc) beginning to be widely adopted and taken
    advantage of by Python programmers.

    Anyone else on this ?
     
    Bruno Desthuilliers, Sep 8, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Ksenia Marasanova

    Ian Bicking Guest

    Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
    > Also, there's something like darwinism at play here. Yes, there are a
    > lot of concurrent ORM/Templating/Web Publishing/GUI/Whatnot projects
    > around, but I guess only the best of them will survive - eventually
    > 'absorbing' what's good in the others.


    No, they will all survive. There's no pressure or reason why a
    software library won't keep surviving; some people -- if only the
    original author -- will write software using the library, and they'll
    be reluctant to abandon it, and not very motivated to change their
    software. The listings will live on in PyPI and on Wikis for a long
    time to come, well after active development has stopped. And, indeed,
    real development could start up at any time. For instance, both PyDO
    and MiddleKit were dormant for a long time before more recent activity.
    All software can go into periods of dormancy, because the individuals
    that write it have other things going on in their lives. It isn't
    necessarily death to the project. Which makes it all the more
    ambiguous what "survival" means.

    Ultimately I'm pessimistic -- while good features can be absorbed, bad
    features and dead libraries never go away, they just fade away very
    very slowly. It isn't natural selection.
     
    Ian Bicking, Sep 9, 2005
    #3
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Sokolov Yura
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    304
    Sokolov Yura
    Sep 8, 2005
  2. Mr. SweatyFinger
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    2,031
    Smokey Grindel
    Dec 2, 2006
  3. John Posner

    Question on Django and Django Book

    John Posner, Nov 13, 2010, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    324
    John Posner
    Nov 13, 2010
  4. eGenix Team: M.-A. Lemburg
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    144
    eGenix Team: M.-A. Lemburg
    Jun 18, 2013
  5. Gary Roach
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    139
    Gary Roach
    Jan 2, 2014
Loading...

Share This Page