|
From: Jacob S. <smu...@sm...> - 2007-02-14 18:35:15
|
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 05:38:19PM +0000, t....@ar... wrote:
> *** Python 2.4.3 (#69, Apr 11 2006, 15:32:42) [MSC v.1310 32 bit (Intel)]=
on win32. ***
> >>> from pysqlite2 import dbapi2 as sqlite
> >>> sqlite.converters
> {'DATE': <function convert_date at 0x01B6C430>, 'TIMESTAMP': <function co=
nvert_timestamp at 0x01B6C470>}
> >>> sqlite.version
> '2.3.3'
> >>>=20
>=20
> obviously 2.3.3 uppercases the names automatically at registration!
> Do you think it makes sense to patch PyDO or should I "downgrade" the sql=
ite lib ?
I have checked into SVN a fix which should solve the problem. Let me know
if it works for you.
> In response to your very detailed thoughts on the future of PyDO, well: >
> coming from TurboGears - where it was integrated out of the box - I tried
> SQLObject: was nice, but then I ran into serious troubles with it's inter=
nal
> caching, so my multiuser client application didn't work properly (ending =
up
> in an academic discussion about "why an ORM library must do such chaching=
");
Drew Csillag (rightly, IMO) drew the line about that sort of caching about a
million years ago in internet time. There used to be a paper somewhere on
the web going into why he thought it was a bad idea.... yes, it still
exists:
http://www.atug.com/andypatterns/rmpydo.htm
=20
> I like PyDO because its small, fast, easy to use, and one can do so much
(with inheritance, projection, joins, "fetch" ...) that perhaps is not all
real ORM, but helps a lot to do the things I need fast and easy.
=20
Right, the ease-of-use features are the library's continuing appeal for me
too. =20
Cheers,
js
--=20
Jacob Smullyan
|
