In message <mailman.2121.1277522302.32709.python-l...@python.org>, Robert Kern wrote:
> On 2010-06-25 19:47 , Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > >> In message<mailman.2046.1277445301.32709.python-l...@python.org>, Cameron >> Simpson wrote: >> >>> On 25Jun2010 15:38, Lawrence >>> D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote: >>> >>> | In message<2010062422432660794-angrybald...@gmailcom>, Owen Jacobson >>> | wrote: >>> >>> |> Why would I write this when SQLAlchemy, even without using its ORM >>> |> features, can do it for me? >>> | >>> | SQLAlchemy doesn’t seem very flexible. Looking at the code examples >>> |<http://www.sqlalchemy.org/docs/examples.html>, they’re very >>> |procedural: build object, then do a string of separate method calls to >>> |add data to it. I prefer the functional approach, as in my table-update >>> |example. >>> >>> He said "without using its ORM". >> >> I noticed that. So were those examples I referenced above “using its >> ORM”? Can you offer better examples “without using its ORM”? > > http://www.sqlalchemy.org/docs/sqlexpression.html Still full of very repetitive boilerplate. Doesn’t look like it can create a simpler alternative to my example at all. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
