openstack team mailing list archive

[Matt Dietz <matt.dietz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with this. It was more the idea that we need to move away from
Sqlalchemy specifically, and that dictionary access actually solves this
problem somehow. Seems like a straw man to me.

On 12/15/11 2:02 PM, "Rick Harris" <rick.harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>For me, it's not one particular notation versus the other, I'd be happy
>with either--it's having both. It just needlessly complicates things.
>
>> Now we're complaining that the ORM we likely aren't using
>> correctly isn't working for us
>
>I don't think anyone is complaining that the *ORM* is at fault here.
>We're just complaining that our abstraction is leaky, and since we went
>through all of the trouble to have this DB API indirection, we may as
>well seal it up so we can eventually support other data stores.
>
>As it stands now, we have all of the complexity of abstraction without
>any of the benefits.
>
>On Dec 15, 2011, at 12:35 PM, Matt Dietz wrote:
>
>> I have to confess to being confused here. We deliberately chose
>> sqlalchemy. Then we mapped everything away so it didn't look like the
>>ORM
>> in question when in reality, we partially took some of said ORM's job
>>away
>> from it. Now we're complaining that the ORM we likely aren't using
>> correctly isn't working for us. In short, we chose to use an ORM, and
>>now
>> we're complaining about the O
>> 
>> I'm not seeing what taking everything to a dictionary-centric model buys
>> us, and I also don't see anyone actually justifying it. Can we get some
>> actual examples of why one approach is better than the other?
>> 
>> 
>> On 12/15/11 10:54 AM, "Johannes Erdfelt" <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011, Kevin L. Mitchell <kevin.mitchell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> wrote:
>>>>     2. However, I violently disagree with the idea that the DB layer
>>>>        must return dicts.  It does not, even if you start talking
>>>>about
>>>>        allowing use of other kinds of databases.  We can, and should,
>>>>        wrap these things in objects, upon which we can call methods
>>>>        that do things‹i.e., we should, you know, actually use
>>>>        object-oriented programming.
>>> 
>>> What kinds of things?
>>> 
>>> I'm not against returning back a standardized object that provides
>>> __getattr__ so we don't have to use dict notation. Any database backend
>>> can do something similar easily.
>>> 
>>> I'm just trying to better understand what is object-oriented about the
>>> data returned from a database? What methods would we want to use?
>>> 
>>> JE
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
>>> Post to     : openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
>>> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
>> Post to     : openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
>> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>