If you need MSSQL
support today, you might want to take a look this ticket:
http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/2358. It hasn't been officially
accepted, but I've been able been able to successfully use MSSQL with Django
after applying it.
Using ticket 2358, I wrote this patch http://code.dj
I noticed on the SQLAlchemy web site that there is "developmental
support" for MS SQL. Would this help hasten support for MS SQL in
Django?
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
That's all well and good but there are a few projects going on that
would be rendered useless if Django eventually did adopt SQLAlchemy,
including the Schema Evolution and the multiple DB branch.
Also this puts into question the philosophy of the full-stack, and if
you really want to be tied to S
Adrian Holovaty wrote:
> We'll decide that when we get there, but I'm inclined to answer your
> question with a single word: "Simplicity." Django will continue to
> work out of the box, with no dependencies.
you know, I get the "no dependencies" thing, I really have a similar
inclination to produ
Am 31.08.2006 um 05:34 schrieb Adrian Holovaty:
> On 8/30/06, Jay Parlar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> A question then: Once the SQLAlchemy stuff is in and solid, will
>> there
>> be any reason *not* to use it?
>
> We'll decide that when we get there, but I'm inclined to answer your
> question w
On 8/30/06, Jay Parlar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A question then: Once the SQLAlchemy stuff is in and solid, will there
> be any reason *not* to use it?
We'll decide that when we get there, but I'm inclined to answer your
question with a single word: "Simplicity." Django will continue to
work
There I go, answering the wrong question... I should learn not to post
after 10 pm, too many brain cells are asleep and the remainder can't
handle typing and thinking at the same time.
The reason not to use it I guess would be that you already have a
working app and you don't need it.
JP
--~-
Jay Parlar wrote:
> On 8/30/06, Adrian Holovaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The goal is that this will have *zero* effect on existing queries. The
> > Django query syntax will remain exactly the same, and the database API
> > will stay the same. The only difference is that the SQLAlchemy backen
On 8/30/06, Adrian Holovaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The goal is that this will have *zero* effect on existing queries. The
> Django query syntax will remain exactly the same, and the database API
> will stay the same. The only difference is that the SQLAlchemy backend
> will have *extra* func
On 8/30/06, Russell Keith-Magee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What impact will this change have on existing queries?
>
> If the intention is to make the Django->SQLAlchemy model transition as easy
> as replacing an import statement, what is the transition plan for existing
> queries?
>
> Will the m
> Then when you need to get at the
> SQLAlchemy Table object, you'd do something like
> Story._sa_table.some_method().
How about `Story._meta.table` or `Story._meta.c` or .columns or
something, to avoid littering the model's namespace with more
properties?
JP
--~--~-~--~~--
Robin Munn wrote:
> On 8/30/06, JP <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > This is great news!
> >
> > One question comes to mind first, because I am nothing if not
> > self-absorbed. :) I wonder how much of the multi-db branch I have been
> > working on will be made irrelevant by this. Any thoughts on
On 8/30/06, Adrian Holovaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi all,Spawned by the recent discussion of the big picture of Python Webframeworks, we've decided to start a new branch of Django developmentthat uses SQLAlchemy (http://www.sqlalchemy.org/
) as the underlyingdatabase library.What impact will t
On 8/30/06, zzzeek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Karl Guertin wrote:
> > This is probably something I should submit a patch for in ActiveMapper
> > itself, but the biggest problem with ActiveMapper is that you can't
> > get at the primaryjoin and secondaryjoin attributes to do the more
> > invo
Karl Guertin wrote:
> This is probably something I should submit a patch for in ActiveMapper
> itself, but the biggest problem with ActiveMapper is that you can't
> get at the primaryjoin and secondaryjoin attributes to do the more
> involved mapping. As a result, I normally just do assign_mapper
On 8/30/06, Robin Munn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Right now, I plan to use ActiveMapper -- why re-invent the wheel? I'd
> be happy to look at your code, though. I like "borrowing" from other
> people's work whenever I can, it means less work for me. :-) And
> that's what open-source development
On 8/30/06, David Elias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Robin Munn wrote:
> > The notes on implementation that Adrian posted pretty much match what
> > I'm thinking at this point. The plan is to make this 100% API
> > compatible (if possible -- you never know what will turn up once you
> > start
On 8/30/06, JP <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This is great news!
>
> One question comes to mind first, because I am nothing if not
> self-absorbed. :) I wonder how much of the multi-db branch I have been
> working on will be made irrelevant by this. Any thoughts on how the
> sqlalchemy backend mi
On 8/29/06, gabor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Robin Munn wrote:
> >
> > The notes on implementation that Adrian posted pretty much match what
> > I'm thinking at this point. The plan is to make this 100% API
> > compatible (if possible -- you never know what will turn up once you
> > start impl
Robin Munn wrote:
> The notes on implementation that Adrian posted pretty much match what
> I'm thinking at this point. The plan is to make this 100% API
> compatible (if possible -- you never know what will turn up once you
> start implementing some idea), so that existing code doesn't need to
>
This is great news!
One question comes to mind first, because I am nothing if not
self-absorbed. :) I wonder how much of the multi-db branch I have been
working on will be made irrelevant by this. Any thoughts on how the
sqlalchemy backend might support connecting different models to
different en
Robin Munn wrote:
>
> The notes on implementation that Adrian posted pretty much match what
> I'm thinking at this point. The plan is to make this 100% API
> compatible (if possible -- you never know what will turn up once you
> start implementing some idea), so that existing code doesn't need to
On 8/29/06, Adrian Holovaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Spawned by the recent discussion of the big picture of Python Web
> frameworks, we've decided to start a new branch of Django development
> that uses SQLAlchemy (http://www.sqlalchemy.org/) as the underlying
> database library.
Hi all,
Spawned by the recent discussion of the big picture of Python Web
frameworks, we've decided to start a new branch of Django development
that uses SQLAlchemy (http://www.sqlalchemy.org/) as the underlying
database library.
Robin Munn, author of an excellent SQLAlchemy tutorial
(http://www
24 matches
Mail list logo