On Sunday, July 1, 2012 6:11:34 AM UTC-5, Andrew Godwin wrote: > > Nice to see this after you mentioned it a couple of weeks ago, Luke! I'm > very slightly in favour of the whole idea, but I'm skeptical about the > amount of work this will require in the DB backend, and what that means > for the ORM's large number of little tricks that people are used to > using. It's going to be a big change for them. > > One area I'm particularly interested in (naturally) is the DDL > generation stuff - I'm in the middle of writing new full DDL (i.e. > ALTER, DROP) backends for Django, and obviously that comes with its own > set of DB-specific changes and workarounds. > > It looks like SQLAlchemy Core would help that aspect, but only slightly > - most of the code is in mapping operations on models to operations on > tables, and I don't think SQLAlchemy Core doesn't have any support for > mutating SQLite (for that we'd need to turn to SQLAlchemy-Migrate). > > Basically, what I'm saying is that while I'd jump behind it if it would > save me this work in the short term, I don't think it will - otherwise, > I'd propose we start the gradual introduction of it in the new DDL > modules, and get the ball rolling. However, it looks like it would end > up resulting in far more work than sticking with what's there (mostly > due to having to fiddle with things like how fields specify types and > relationships and tables work). > > Still, I'm +0 on the whole idea. > > Andrew > > I am pretty sure SQLAlchemy-Migrate has fallen out of favor. You should check Alembic, http://alembic.readthedocs.org/en/latest/.
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/django-developers/-/JW0hkvvcflgJ. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en.
