Comments on: SQLAlchemy http://www.linux-mag.com/id/3927/ Open Source, Open Standards Sun, 23 Nov 2008 12:01:35 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.11 by: niemeyer http://www.linux-mag.com/id/3927/#comment-611 Sat, 17 Nov 2007 17:59:49 +0000 http://www.linux-mag.com/id/3927/#comment-611 Some of the reasons that lead us to write Storm continue to be true nowadays. Even then I wish you a great success with SQLAlchemy. Storm doesn't offer traditional pooling because the model it uses doesn't require it. Connections are gracefully reused, including reconnection support with correct transactional behavior and what not. I can explain that to you in a better forum if you're curious. Some of the reasons that lead us to write Storm continue to be true nowadays. Even then I wish you a great success with SQLAlchemy.

Storm doesn’t offer traditional pooling because the model it uses doesn’t require it. Connections are gracefully reused, including reconnection support with correct transactional behavior and what not.

I can explain that to you in a better forum if you’re curious.

]]> by: mike_mp http://www.linux-mag.com/id/3927/#comment-270 Mon, 06 Aug 2007 16:05:04 +0000 http://www.linux-mag.com/id/3927/#comment-270 Canonical was (enthusastically) using early versions of SQLAlchemy. But the pace of SA's development in terms of their immediate business needs did not suit them and they lost confidence in the codebase, so they abandoned and rolled their own ORM which became Storm. They later decided Storm would be their "flagship" open source offering from launchpad. Since then SQLAlchemy has had nearly twenty releases and virtually all issues Canonical had with SA have long been resolved. Storm as a project has an intentionally narrower scope than SA, lacking such features as schema generation support, table reflection, and even a connection pool (which they may decide to add in a later release), although its object-relational API is nearly indistinguishable from that of SQLAlchemy. Canonical was (enthusastically) using early versions of SQLAlchemy. But the pace of SA’s development in terms of their immediate business needs did not suit them and they lost confidence in the codebase, so they abandoned and rolled their own ORM which became Storm. They later decided Storm would be their “flagship” open source offering from launchpad.

Since then SQLAlchemy has had nearly twenty releases and virtually all issues Canonical had with SA have long been resolved. Storm as a project has an intentionally narrower scope than SA, lacking such features as schema generation support, table reflection, and even a connection pool (which they may decide to add in a later release), although its object-relational API is nearly indistinguishable from that of SQLAlchemy.

]]> by: neokilly http://www.linux-mag.com/id/3927/#comment-260 Thu, 02 Aug 2007 16:04:09 +0000 http://www.linux-mag.com/id/3927/#comment-260 What about <a href="https://storm.canonical.com/FrontPage" rel="nofollow">Storm</a>, a python ORM developped by Canonical, the creators of Ubuntu (see their <a href="http://www.ubuntu.com/news/storm-python-orm-open-sourced" rel="nofollow">Storm announcement on Ubuntu's website</a>) and which is used on <a href="http://launchpad.net/" rel="nofollow">Launchpad</a>, the platform used to develop Ubuntu ? What about Storm, a python ORM developped by Canonical, the creators of Ubuntu (see their Storm announcement on Ubuntu’s website) and which is used on Launchpad, the platform used to develop Ubuntu ?

]]>