RE: [SQLObject] ezSqlObject convenience wrapper

[<jws...@ra...>]

>This debate is becoming a pointless "yes it is", "no it isn't" sort of 
>thing though, and I can see now I won't be able to make headway on my 
>point, but my logic still stands. If everybody approached this 
>situation in the same way (e.g. Daniel with inheritance, Sidnei with 
>CASCADE and such), we'd have five or six "wrapper" packages like this 
>is no time.

One would hope that these extension would be test beds for new ideas and if
worthwhile, would eventually be mainstreamed. If there were multiple 
independent code forks, that should probably be interpreted as impatience
with the development speed of the main code. Having too many people 
contributing code is a problem every project should wish for.