Re: [SQLObject] Temporary Objects (I'm going in!)

[Nick <ni...@dd...>]

On Tue, 2003-04-29 at 22:57, Paul Chakravarti wrote:
> Although I am just an interested observer here I would say that I am 
> slightly concerned that this proposal may add significant complexity to 
> support what I believe to be a marginal set of cases.

While think there needs to be some kind of transactional capability
intrinsic to SQLObject beyound those provided by the DB API, I agree
that this looks a bit complex for a simple concept.

> I believe that the simplicity and cleanness of the SQLObject interface 
> and orthogonality with the underlying database functionality is a 
> strong selling point.

Definitely.  There are similar projects out there, like Modeling, that
can cover *every single case*.  I like the KISS principle, myself.  The
big feature of SQLObject in my mind (and what drew me to this kind of
project) is RAD.

> Trying to build a generic object store capable of persisting an 
> arbitrary object graphs in a coherent/transactional manner together 
> seems to be excessive and probably impossible if you are trying to 
> support concurrent access from multiple processes (without implementing 
> coherent distributed faulting).

I agree... I advocate some kind of system where you can either cache
everything up in a transaction-like manner in a pythonic way until you
call commit, or else an autocommit model like it currently uses.  That
will cover 99% of your users and maintains the simplicity of the
interface.

Nick