[Zope-dev] Re: Zope3 on Google AppEngine

[David Pratt]

Hi Malthe. Perhaps I am wrong about the licensing situation. I guess its 
a bit confusing since pypi indicates GPL and package ZPL. I guess I 
should contact Kapil for clarification if I am interested in 
experimenting here. Many thanks.

Regards,
David

     name="ore.alchemist",
     version="0.5.1",
     url="http://code.google.com/p/zope-alchemist",
     install_requires=['setuptools', 'transaction'],
     packages=find_packages('src', exclude=["*.tests"]),
     package_dir= {'':'src'},
     namespace_packages=['ore'],
     package_data = {
     '': ['*.txt', '*.zcml', '*.pt'],
     },
     zip_safe=False,
     author='Kapil Thangavelu',
     author_email='kapil.foss at gmail.com',
     description="""\
ore.alchemist contains an integration of sqlalchemy into the
Zope App server environment. It can be used with Zope2, Zope3 or
standalone.
""",
     license='ZPL',
     keywords="zope zope3",
     )

Malthe Borch wrote:
> David Pratt wrote:
>> Hi Malthe. z3c.dobbin looks quite good and transparent. In my opinion, 
>> this is much closer to what integration ought to look like for CA. 
>> BTW, I noticed that z3c.dobbin is zpl but ore.alchemist that it 
>> depends on is gpl. I think all the other zope flavors of sqlalchemy 
>> are under zpl. I believe there was a recent effort to bring the 
>> sqlalchemy flavors together under a single package. Not sure what 
>> progress has been made.
> 
> It's progressing, but we've also talked to Kapil about relicensing 
> ore.alchemist to LGPL or ZPL, whichever is enough.
> 
>> In any case, this direction looks like a good one. It would be 
>> interesting if dobbin could map for storm but it appears to rely 
>> heavily upon ore.alchemist.
> 
> I think it's more accurate to say that both rely heavily on SQLAlchemy. 
> We're actually not using the table reflection functionality of 
> ore.alchemist because we've taken a different approach to it (joining on 
> minimal interfaces rather than mapping classes to tables). What we are 
> using is some of the zope.schema to sqlalchemy.Column mappings and the 
> database session environment.
> 
>> I believe storms advantage is that it is faster than sqlalchemy since 
>> it doesn't have to worry about pooling connections, mappers, and 
>> more.  I'd be interesting to see a similar approach with storm. Good 
>> job on this.
> 
> Thanks, I think we might've found a good approach. Currently we're 
> test-driving it in the Vudo project. So far so good.
> 
> I don't know much about storm; at this point I must say that I care more 
> about ease of use, mindshare and stability than just speed; we feel that 
> SQLAlchemy gives us that. Add to it that their community is absolutely 
> great.
> 
> \malthe
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev at zope.org
> http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
> **  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
> (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
> http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
>