On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 3:59 PM, steve <st...@lonetwin.net> wrote: > >> > I personally prefer SQLObject because it comes across as being more > pythonic than SQLAlchemy, of course YMMV. > > Quite likely .. but it doesn't try to be pythonic, its focused more on staying consistent with its relational underpinnings. A ^C^V from the documentation -
DBA Approved Built to conform to what DBAs demand, including the ability to swap out generated SQL with hand-optimized statements, full usage of bind parameters for all literal values, fully transactionalized and batched database writes using the Unit of Work pattern. All object-relational patterns are designed around the usage of proper referential integrity, and foreign keys are an integral part of its usage. Non-Opinionated SQLAlchemy places the highest value on not getting in the way of database and application architecture. Unlike many tools, it *never* "generates" schemas (not to be confused with issuing user-defined DDL<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Definition_Language>, in which it excels) or relies on naming conventions of any kind. SQLAlchemy supports the widest variety of database and architectural designs as is reasonably possible. > > cheers, > - steve > -- > random non tech spiel: http://lonetwin.blogspot.com/ > tech randomness: http://lonehacks.blogspot.com/ > what i'm stumbling into: http://lonetwin.stumbleupon.com/ > _______________________________________________ > 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
