whats your favourite object relational mapper?

[Flavio]

With so many object relational mappers out there, I wonder which one is
the preferred tool among the Pythonists... is there a favourite?

Sqlobject, PyDO, SQLAlchemy, dejavu, etc...

[Serge Orlov]

Flavio wrote:

With so many object relational mappers out there, I wonder which one is
the preferred tool among the Pythonists... is there a favourite?

Sqlobject, PyDO, SQLAlchemy, dejavu, etc...

Google results:
Sqlobject ORM: about 17,100
PyDO ORM: 469
SQLAlchemy ORM: 571
dejavu ORM: 659

[Serge Orlov]

Jean-Paul Calderone wrote:

On 19 Mar 2006 17:52:19 -0800, Serge Orlov <se*********@gmail.com> wrote:

Flavio wrote:

With so many object relational mappers out there, I wonder which one is
the preferred tool among the Pythonists... is there a favourite?

Sqlobject, PyDO, SQLAlchemy, dejavu, etc...

Google results:
Sqlobject ORM: about 17,100
PyDO ORM: 469
SQLAlchemy ORM: 571
dejavu ORM: 659

axiom orm: about 21,500

Although "axiom" is not exactly unique. How about:

divmod axiom: 34,500

Huh.

+axiom +python +ORM: 724
+dejavu +python +ORM: 529

[Jonathan Ellis]

Serge Orlov wrote:

Flavio wrote:

With so many object relational mappers out there, I wonder which one is
the preferred tool among the Pythonists... is there a favourite?

Sqlobject, PyDO, SQLAlchemy, dejavu, etc...

Google results:
Sqlobject ORM: about 17,100
PyDO ORM: 469
SQLAlchemy ORM: 571
dejavu ORM: 659

.... which, of course, goes to show how stupid a metric this is, now
that even Ian Bicking has admitted that SqlObject in its current form
is a dead end.

Personally, I think SqlAlchemy has the brightest future. It's
significantly more sophisticated than the others, and it's already
quite usable and even stable (if the 0.1.3 to 0.1.4 transition is any
indication), although I think technically still alpha.

-Jonathan

[Giovanni Bajo]

Jonathan Ellis wrote:

... which, of course, goes to show how stupid a metric this is, now
that even Ian Bicking has admitted that SqlObject in its current form
is a dead end.

Got a pointer?
--
Giovanni Bajo

[Jonathan Ellis]

Giovanni Bajo wrote:

Jonathan Ellis wrote:

... which, of course, goes to show how stupid a metric this is, now
that even Ian Bicking has admitted that SqlObject in its current form
is a dead end.

Got a pointer?

http://blog.ianbicking.org/sqlobject-2.html

[Steve Holden]

Jonathan Ellis wrote:

Giovanni Bajo wrote:

Jonathan Ellis wrote:

... which, of course, goes to show how stupid a metric this is, now
that even Ian Bicking has admitted that SqlObject in its current form
is a dead end.

Got a pointer?

http://blog.ianbicking.org/sqlobject-2.html

I think describing this as Ian saying the code in its current form "is a
dead end" is to read rather more into the words than is actually there.
I spoke to Ian, because he made the blog entry the same day as I was
using SQLObject as an ORM exemplar in my "Using Databases in Python"
tutorial, and I wanted a few words of reassurance.

You will find as SQLObject 2 appears that it's more of a refactoring
than a complete revision. I suspect the maintenance of the code had
become tedious because it had slowly morphed into a less-than-ideal form
for its fully-developed functionality.

regards
Steve
--
Steve Holden [phone] [phone]
Holden Web LLC/Ltd www.holdenweb.com
Love me, love my blog holdenweb.blogspot.com

[Jonathan Ellis]

Steve Holden wrote:

I think describing this as Ian saying the code in its current form "is a
dead end" is to read rather more into the words than is actually there.

Well, that may be. However, given that the 0.x code is so crufty that
the v2 "refactor" is a multi-day (-week, now) process that merits a new
project name, and there are enough architecture warts that it's not
worth it to keep v2 backwards compatible, I'm not sure what
requirements of being a dead end are missing here. :)

I suppose that in one sense no OSS project is a dead end since you can
always pick up the pieces yourself, but it's clear the 0.x series is
not a place to expect much in the way of new developments from its
author.

-Jonathan

[Steve Holden]

Jonathan Ellis wrote:

Steve Holden wrote:

I think describing this as Ian saying the code in its current form "is a
dead end" is to read rather more into the words than is actually there.

Well, that may be. However, given that the 0.x code is so crufty that
the v2 "refactor" is a multi-day (-week, now) process that merits a new
project name, and there are enough architecture warts that it's not
worth it to keep v2 backwards compatible, I'm not sure what
requirements of being a dead end are missing here. :)

I suppose that in one sense no OSS project is a dead end since you can
always pick up the pieces yourself, but it's clear the 0.x series is
not a place to expect much in the way of new developments from its
author.

Sure, we can agree on that. I though you meant to imply that Ian was
abandoning the concepts behind SQLObject rather that the somewhat crufty
initial implementation.

regards
Steve
--
Steve Holden [phone] [phone]
Holden Web LLC/Ltd www.holdenweb.com
Love me, love my blog holdenweb.blogspot.com