Re: [SQLObject] two postgres questions

[Edmund L. <el...@in...>]

Luke Opperman wrote:

> 3. Recognizing that constraints are *part* of the data model, this is just a
> clarification of (2), a desire to model everything via relational theory but
> to access this model via objects.
> 
> I don't see anything inherent in (3) that requires you to "trade pure object
> orientation", the problem is that we're not aware of an object mapper that
> supports as much as we'd like.

Yes, you're right of course.


> Since I'm interested in making SQLObject (or a byproduct of) able to support
> what I consider to be all of relational theory in an object-accessible way,
> I'm curious what you consider to be the too-complex parts today. So far I've
> heard multi-way joins and constraints. Let me see if I can elaborate these,
> then you do the same?

I'll do this soon... sorry (to you, Bud, and Ian) for taking such a long 
time to reply. Lot's of things happening with family and work right now.

One thing that I want to do is sit down and try using SQLObject in its 
current form for a small portion of a real project that does use a lot 
of relational integrity, and then report where I get stuck. This would 
be a good way to stretch it.

I've just spent a couple of days going over MiddleKit, Object Relational 
Membrane, Modeling, and SQLObject. I keep coming back to SQLObject for a 
variety of reasons, mostly to do with the documentation, user community, 
and interface aesthetics. When I have time, I'll post my impressions 
(worth $0.02) of each.

...Edmund.