Kevin Dangoor wrote:
> Hi Jimmie,
> On 9/24/05, Jimmie Houchin <jlho...@gmail.com
>>While exploring full text indexing options the other day I happened upon
>>a database which sounds very interesting to me.
> I'd be interesting in hearing about any full text indexing options you
> found, but that's not TurboGears-related...
I've been thinking alot on how I want to handle my web app.
I've been playing in the Squeak world for a couple of years. I really
like Squeak but only recently decided to go with a Python solution
because I didn't (don't) think the Squeak solutions are as robust,
scalable or ready. Its a relatively small community of dedicated people.
But sometimes you just need more people on the problem.
Since you've explored Seaside you are somewhat familiar with the
situation. Seaside is great if you need all the magic. But if you don't
you still pay the price.
Okay back to my story. I've been considering data storage options. Since
much of my project contains a lot of static data. And because I can
easily segment my data into to simple files on the filesystem. And
because full text searching with databases isn't as transparent as
filesystem technologies. I explored Swish, htdig,...
(Yes I'm familiar with MySQL and PostgreSQL options)
Well while I was at the Gmane site that mentioned full text searching of
the archives. So I wanted to explore what they used.
They mentioned Xapian which I've never heard of so I searched.
which has Python bingings by DivMod with Xapwrap
It claims you can index RDBMS via the PerlDBI module.
It would be interesting to see a Python solution for such.
But it looks quite interesting.
>>Has anybody here every tried Axiom?
>> Axiom is an object database built on SQLite. In addition to
>>object-relational mapping it provides heterogenous object references and
> SQLite is a great little database, but its database-level locks make
> it suitable for webapps where you're writing very infrequently.
> In addition, many people need to work with existing databases or other
> (possibly non-Python) database tools. That's what an ORM getts you.
Oh absolutely. If there is only one solution per se, it ought to be
SQLObject. It provides you with options for multiple backends. And I
would imagine some capacity to move from one backend to another.
>>I am not just talking about Axiom here, but also for ZODB, Durus, ...
>>I think SQLObject probably paves a nice Python way to RDBMS.
>>But what if you don't want an RDBMS?
> While an object database that preserves some of the nice querying
> capability you get with an RDBMS is appealing intellectually to me,
> practically speaking I've found the tool support to be far superior
> for RDBMSes... to the point where dealing with the "impedance
> mismatch" is a worthwhile tradeoff.
> But that's just me.
Well you are most definitely right for you. :)
And you very well may be right overall.
As a non-RDBMS person, I only enter that arena if necessary. But
thankfully, SQLObject and such make it much more transparent. But there
is still the overall SQL/RDBMS mentallity and thinking.
Example from your http://www.turbogears.org/about/sqlobject.html
firstName = StringCol(length=100)
middleInitial = StringCol(length=1, default=None)
lastName = StringCol(length=100)
lastContact = DateTimeCol(default=datetime.now)
Still a lot of SQL understanding, worldview, optimizing, conventions in
Your still thinking in columns, sizes, constraints, keys, joins, etc.
(not all of that in that example but in other docs)
Which what prompted my thinking concerning this option.
>>Is this a part of TG which can be made pluggable or interface-able
>>without TG becoming too loose?
> At present, TurboGears has fairly minimal ties to SQLObject. I expect
> that more will grow, but not to the point where someone is unable to
> use whatever storage mechanism of choice they may have.
> That said, the TurboGears project is out to help codify (in both docs
> and code) easy-to-use solutions to the things that are universal or at
> least very common among webapps. Storing and retrieving data is almost
> as core to webapps as getting requests and sending responses!
> Flexibility usually comes at the cost of added complexity. The code
> becomes more complex, the docs become more complex.
Absolutely agree. Which was why my concern for such making it as I
expressed it "too loose".
> Being able to focus on the application you're writing rather than the
> infrastructure is the point. Being able to choose database engines is
> a valid need for deployment... but choosing radically different
> persistence schemes is just generally not required for a typical
> Another way to think about it is from a customer's perspective. When
> we're writing webapps, we're writing them for someone to use. A
> typical user cares a lot more that clicking on a widget on the screen
> makes something slide or fade in neatly than they do about some nifty
> database tech that's running under the hood.
Oh absolutely. But the developers care. Which is why we end up with the
different web app frameworks and persistence schemes.
I was not (maybe am not) seeing the necessarily radically different
nature in the persistence scheme from TGs view. Now I have not fully
examined TG, SQLObject, etc. nor am I a DB expert. So my thoughts maybe
in error naive.
But... again from your SQLObject page...
>>> p = Person(firstName="John", lastName="Doe")
<Person 1 firstName='John' middleInitial=None
datetime.datetime(2005, 9, 16, 9, 28, 7)
>>> p.middleInitial = 'Q'
You speak on how Pythonic data access is. And it is. :)
And so without spending the time to research ZODB, Durus, or Axiom
fully. It naively seems that much of the differences are in the "class"
definition for the objects. From your example above it seems that
instance access is Pythonic. If that naive assessment is somewhat
accurate, it would seem we could make an interface which handles such.
Minimal appropriate datatypes which have optional parameters which can
be as minimal as the Python DBs allow, up to the additional stuff
available for RDBMSes through SQLObject.
Just more out there thinking. :)
I am totally alright with being tightly bound to SQLObject provided you,
TGBDFL, believe that it is the best decision for TG.
I believe it is better to have a consistent thought throughout your
framework, than to be inconsistent, but accomodating to all.
>>Just tossing out some random thoughts. :)
> And it's much appreciated! This is the kind of stuff that helps to
> define "what *is* TurboGears?".
Thanks. A good definition helps a lot. It is what enables proper, well
reasoned decisions. Or the lack of such clear definition disables proper
Thanks for responding to these far out queries. :)