whats your favourite object relational mapper?

[Flavio]

With so many object relational mappers out there, I wonder which one is
the preferred tool among the Pythonists... is there a favourite?

Sqlobject, PyDO, SQLAlchemy, dejavu, etc...

[Serge Orlov]

Google results:
Sqlobject ORM: about 17,100
PyDO ORM: 469
SQLAlchemy ORM: 571
dejavu ORM: 659

[Jean-Paul Calderone]

axiom orm: about 21,500

Although "axiom" is not exactly unique. How about:

divmod axiom: 34,500

Huh.

Jean-Paul

[Serge Orlov]

+axiom +python +ORM: 724
+dejavu +python +ORM: 529

[Jonathan Ellis]

... which, of course, goes to show how stupid a metric this is, now
that even Ian Bicking has admitted that SqlObject in its current form
is a dead end.

Personally, I think SqlAlchemy has the brightest future. It's
significantly more sophisticated than the others, and it's already
quite usable and even stable (if the 0.1.3 to 0.1.4 transition is any
indication), although I think technically still alpha.

-Jonathan

[Giovanni Bajo]

Jonathan Ellis wrote:

> ... which, of course, goes to show how stupid a metric this is, now
> that even Ian Bicking has admitted that SqlObject in its current form
> is a dead end.

Got a pointer?
--
Giovanni Bajo

[Jonathan Ellis]

http://blog.ianbicking.org/sqlobject-2.html

[Steve Holden]

I think describing this as Ian saying the code in its current form "is a
dead end" is to read rather more into the words than is actually there.
I spoke to Ian, because he made the blog entry the same day as I was
using SQLObject as an ORM exemplar in my "Using Databases in Python"
tutorial, and I wanted a few words of reassurance.

You will find as SQLObject 2 appears that it's more of a refactoring
than a complete revision. I suspect the maintenance of the code had
become tedious because it had slowly morphed into a less-than-ideal form
for its fully-developed functionality.

regards
Steve
--
Steve Holden +44 150 684 7255 +1 800 494 3119
Holden Web LLC/Ltd www.holdenweb.com
Love me, love my blog holdenweb.blogspot.com

[Jonathan Ellis]

Steve Holden wrote:
> I think describing this as Ian saying the code in its current form "is a
> dead end" is to read rather more into the words than is actually there.

Well, that may be. However, given that the 0.x code is so crufty that
the v2 "refactor" is a multi-day (-week, now) process that merits a new
project name, and there are enough architecture warts that it's not
worth it to keep v2 backwards compatible, I'm not sure what
requirements of being a dead end are missing here. :)

I suppose that in one sense no OSS project is a dead end since you can
always pick up the pieces yourself, but it's clear the 0.x series is
not a place to expect much in the way of new developments from its
author.

-Jonathan

[Steve Holden]

Sure, we can agree on that. I though you meant to imply that Ian was
abandoning the concepts behind SQLObject rather that the somewhat crufty
initial implementation.