Reasons Django 1.3 will be awesome
blog.aawsolutions.com
Reasons Django 1.3 will be awesome
1–10 of 15 posts
Re: Reasons Django 1.3 will be awesome
#2What is it with these mainstay frameworks that they never adopt the mature ORM on their respective platform but instead keep growing their own, less than half-baked alternative?
We have this in django vs SQLAlchemy and Rails vs datamapper.
The arguments that I've heard were mostly that the respective ORMs either weren't around when the framework started and/or that anyone "can just plug their preferred ORM in anyways". Neither really cuts it for me. Even in java-land (yes, java!) they make more sense in that regard - everyone just uses hibernate.
Well, however other than this unrelated rant (triggered by the mention of the removal of a most basic ORM-wart...); Good work django guys. :-)
Re: Reasons Django 1.3 will be awesome
#3Completely agree about "models.ForeignKey(on_delete=" - really looking forward to that, it would have saved me a bunch of time and hassle in the past.
Re: Reasons Django 1.3 will be awesome
#4What is it with these mainstay frameworks that they never adopt the mature ORM on their respective platform but instead keep growing their own, less than half-baked alternative? We have this in django vs SQLAlchemy and Rails vs datamapper. The arguments that I've heard were mostly that the respective ORMs either weren't around when the framework started and/or that anyone "can just plug their preferred ORM in anyways…
Django's ORM existed before SQLAlchemy, and ActiveRecord existed before DataMapper.
Re: Reasons Django 1.3 will be awesome
#5What is it with these mainstay frameworks that they never adopt the mature ORM on their respective platform but instead keep growing their own, less than half-baked alternative? We have this in django vs SQLAlchemy and Rails vs datamapper. The arguments that I've heard were mostly that the respective ORMs either weren't around when the framework started and/or that anyone "can just plug their preferred ORM in anyways…
Wow, actually had an article starred on this in the trusty Reader. http://jmoiron.net/blog/about-sqlalchemy-and-djangos-orm/
Money quote for me: "SQLAlchemy is a toolkit for python programmers who want or need to use a database to write programs that do so. Django's ORM is a tool for python programmers to quickly model business-level data relationships and use a database for persistent storage. This is really an important distinction; the Django ORM interface is focused on the application's data model, whereas SQLAlchemy's interface is focused on the underlying data store."
Re: Reasons Django 1.3 will be awesome
#6What is it with these mainstay frameworks that they never adopt the mature ORM on their respective platform but instead keep growing their own, less than half-baked alternative? We have this in django vs SQLAlchemy and Rails vs datamapper. The arguments that I've heard were mostly that the respective ORMs either weren't around when the framework started and/or that anyone "can just plug their preferred ORM in anyways…
I feel that Django's ORM is one the main reasons for its success. Yes, it's limited and simplistic compared to something like Hibernate -- but that's actually a blessing in this context. People love Django because it makes it so simple to build an application quickly. Without the built-in ORM, things like admin and generic views would be harder to implement and certainly wouldn't work anywhere nearly as nicely out of the box.
Re: Reasons Django 1.3 will be awesome
#7What is it with these mainstay frameworks that they never adopt the mature ORM on their respective platform but instead keep growing their own, less than half-baked alternative? We have this in django vs SQLAlchemy and Rails vs datamapper. The arguments that I've heard were mostly that the respective ORMs either weren't around when the framework started and/or that anyone "can just plug their preferred ORM in anyways…
Wasn't one of the major reasons for the giant Rails 3 switchover to allow datamapper or other ORM's to be used in place of activerecord?
Re: Reasons Django 1.3 will be awesome
#8What is it with these mainstay frameworks that they never adopt the mature ORM on their respective platform but instead keep growing their own, less than half-baked alternative? We have this in django vs SQLAlchemy and Rails vs datamapper. The arguments that I've heard were mostly that the respective ORMs either weren't around when the framework started and/or that anyone "can just plug their preferred ORM in anyways…
Wasn't one of the major reasons for the giant Rails 3 switchover to allow datamapper or other ORM's to be used in place of activerecord?
Don't know about the Rails world so much. But Django's "loose coupling" allows you to use a different ORM if you see fit as well. Though that's to be dosed with salt to taste... you lose some fun automagic stuff like manage.py data, contrib.admin, sessions
A quick stackexchange search yielded a link here http://lethain.com/entry/2008/jul/23/replacing-django-s-orm-...
Re: Reasons Django 1.3 will be awesome
#9What is it with these mainstay frameworks that they never adopt the mature ORM on their respective platform but instead keep growing their own, less than half-baked alternative? We have this in django vs SQLAlchemy and Rails vs datamapper. The arguments that I've heard were mostly that the respective ORMs either weren't around when the framework started and/or that anyone "can just plug their preferred ORM in anyways…
I love Django's ORM.
Re: Reasons Django 1.3 will be awesome
#10What is it with these mainstay frameworks that they never adopt the mature ORM on their respective platform but instead keep growing their own, less than half-baked alternative? We have this in django vs SQLAlchemy and Rails vs datamapper. The arguments that I've heard were mostly that the respective ORMs either weren't around when the framework started and/or that anyone "can just plug their preferred ORM in anyways…
Wasn't one of the major reasons for the giant Rails 3 switchover to allow datamapper or other ORM's to be used in place of activerecord?
It's not so much that they couldn't be used before, but the coupling was so tight that there was a high burden on the maintainers to fix things when they broke.
With the creation of a stable internal API for all of these kinds of things, DataMapper can now be just as much of a first class citizen as ActiveRecord.