[BioSQL-l] Python ORM mapping for BioSQL

[Peter]

> Peter wrote:
>> I agree but ONLY if you are not trying to use an existing schema with
>> composite primary keys and/or tables with no primary key.  For these
>> SQLAlchemy seems to be the current best bet with python, leading to
>> the choice of either TurboGears (which I went for) or Pylons (picked
>> by Brad).

Nick wrote:
> Well, I wouldn't be that prescriptive - I would say people can just use what
> they feel comfortable with and they can get good results from quickly. I've
> had good experiences with Django so I wouldn't put people off it just
> because of the primary key issue which can be partially solved easily enough
> with a single ALTER TABLE statement :)

Maybe adding a few surrogate primary keys to tables to make Django (or
your ORM of choice) happy isn't such a big deal.  However, I put a lot
of value on the shared standard nature of the BioSQL schema, and
prefer to modify it as little as possible - not just in case I break
something another software package relies on, but also to reduce long
term maintenance and re-installation hassles.

In your case you had existing experience with Django, while I had no
prior investment in it or any other ORM tool.  I can therefore
understand your choice - and might even have done the same in your
position.

I'm not convinced that the BioSQL schema needs to be changed for
v1.1.x to help ORM software either (surrogate primary keys on all
tables - something mooted on the roadmap).
http://www.biosql.org/wiki/Enhancement_Requests

Peter