Re: [SQLObject] ezSqlObject convenience wrapper

[Ian B. <ia...@co...>]

Brad Bollenbach wrote:
> I cannot speak for Ian obviously, though I have a pretty good hunch that 
> if somebody sent him a big patch for SQLObject that looked anywhere near 
> mildly sane, he'd either a.) merge it himself, or b.) offer checkin 
> access, with the specification that it be checked in on a branch (which, 
> for anyone who floats around the CVS repositories of Open Source 
> projects knows that using branches for this kind of thing is standard 
> procedure. Yes, I know, SQLObject is using svn now, but same idea.)

I can't say that's entirely true.  Well, it sure better be more than 
just "mildly sane" for one thing ;)

SQLObject is starting to get a point of maturity where changes have to 
be well thought out, because they effect backward compatibility, and 
documented interfaces are something that should be retained for future 
compatibility.  So I don't want bad or inferior interfaces to get into 
SQLObject.  "Bad" or "inferior" is obviously a subjective consideration, 
and has a lot to do with SQLObject's current and future scope.  A good 
interface solves several of the open problems with SQLObject, though any 
one person may only need one problem solved and a different or simpler 
API might seem clear to that person.

I do feel a certain ownership of SQLObject and its direction, so I want 
to be involved in the design of its API, certainly in a more direct way 
than "here's a patch to apply."  That shouldn't keep people from going 
off and experimenting on their own, though, it just means that their 
results would probably have to be revisited and refactored when it comes 
back to SQLObject.

> To repeat, people like David are golden to SQLObject, and to any such 
> Open Source project to which they contribute their volunteer efforts. 
> It's great to see new contributions. All I'm saying is that doing it 
> this way makes it much more hassle (prohibitively so, in fact) than it 
> needs to be to try out new possible SQLObject features.

I certainly would like to encourage David to keep doing development, and 
that we can integrate some of the things in ezSqlObject, though probably 
in a more piecemeal fashion than wholesale merging.  (In a related 
issue, I realize Daniel Savard's inheritance patch is also still out 
there, and I wish I knew exactly what to do with it...)

   Ian