On 2/10/14 20:43, Esteban A. Maringolo wrote:
I don't want to sound harsh, but there is no VISIBLE interest from the
Pharo board/committee regarding ORM and/or RDBMS support other than a
CI task.
Do you really mean that the board is a kind of jerks and idiots that are
lazy bastards?
If people that have interest in ORM do not help us how can make progress.
When did you send a fix to Pharo? Remember Pharo is Yours.
Esteban is working like a mad on making sure that Spur is coming to us.
May be we can
say to esteban to stop Spur and 64 bits after and some VM bug fix and
support for integrating better and ....
to focus on Glorp and DBTalk.
Now when as a community did we help the consortium, the board and the
community?
Few days ago I asked a question in the Pharo-Business
regarding this, and got NO REPLY.
I did not see it.
This week I was looking into Python's SQLAlchemy [1] to find how close
it is to GLORP current features, and also found out how far it
seems/feels to a small
community like ours. Not to mention things like jOOQ[2] ([1] provides
some of its features though).
I'm making no demands here, just giving my opinion about a "business
feature" (DBs) that I'd like better supported.
This is on our roadmap. With the money of the consrortium I hope that we
will be able
to pay someone (I have an idea) to improve this support but there is no
magic
- if people that needs it do not give an hand....
- if people that needs it do not participate to the consortium
then it will be at our speed.
Because other Pharo clients like Thales wants multi windowing support,
we need
better Text, better events ....
May pythoners are cooler than Pharoers when it comes to helping write
code and documentation?
And I wondered why SqueakDBX decided to use V2 instead of V3,
a protocol introduced in 2003 or so.
Is the V2/V3 spec a PostgreSQL protocol spec or something made up in
the Squeak community?
I know something changed in PgSQL protocols around version 7.2.
Esteban A. Maringolo
[1] http://www.sqlalchemy.org/
[2] http://www.jooq.org/
