On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 3:58 PM, Noufal Ibrahim <nou...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 3:37 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves <law...@au-kbc.org> > wrote: > > On Friday 05 Mar 2010 3:22:12 pm Dhananjay Nene wrote: > >> > I might add that I've worked with ORMs almost regularly since 1996 in > >> > C++, > >> > >> Java and Python. SQLAlchemy has probably been the most successful ORM I > >> have seen which has managed to retain the balance between relational > and > >> object paradigms (almost everyone else completely throws in the towel > >> towards providing an object API around database access). > >> > > > > what about django's orm? > > I don't expect that it will hold a candle to SQLAlchemy > No composite primary key support - > http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/373 is the first thing that comes > to mind (and one of SQLAlchemy's killer features). > I don't think it follows a data mapper pattern. > I'm not sure how much reflection it can do. > > I agree DjangoORM is unlikely to be as full featured and as comprehensive as SQLAlchemy. SQLAlchemy really helps when you want to exercise far more control at the relational level (eg. reporting etc.) or at legacy database design mapping. But there are likely to be many usecases where SQLAlchemy learning cost may be higher than other ORMs eg. Django ORM. > > -- > ~noufal > http://nibrahim.net.in > _______________________________________________ > BangPypers mailing list > BangPypers@python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/bangpypers > -- -------------------------------------------------------- blog: http://blog.dhananjaynene.com twitter: http://twitter.com/dnene http://twitter.com/_pythonic _______________________________________________ BangPypers mailing list BangPypers@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/bangpypers
