[storm] Python 3

[Vernon Cole]

On the Windows side of things, adodbapi should be ready for Python 3
in a few weeks, so a version 3 capable adapter could soon be
available. (Wouldn't it be funny if Windows storm had a feature before
Linux?) The present storm branch which uses adodbapi is targeted at
Microsoft SQL, but that unnaturally limits the interface.  adodbapi
can talk to many databases, including MySQL. I have not actually
tested it with PostgreSQL, but it is supposed do that, too.

 One of my goals in life has been to get storm talking to MSSQL --
that is why I have taken on the maintenance of adodbapi.  But it would
be easier to do a storm<->adodbapi<->MySQL backend than a
storm<->adodbapi<->MSSQL backend, and it would be a reasonable
stepping stone in getting an MSSQL backend running. That way the
actual operation of the api can be debugged separately from the
idiosyncrasies of Microsoft's dialect of SQL.

  [Also, it would make multi-database access more installation
friendly. I have a (non-storm) script in production which talks to SQL
server or MySQL or SQLite and AS400 SQL simultaneously. (It accesses a
postal-code database on the PC network and a customer database on the
mainframe.)  I can do it with only two imports -- the built-in one for
SQLite and adodbapi for all the rest.]

My question is, which would be better:

1) Create multiple database adapters requiring multiple schemes, so
that I use a different URL depending on whether I am accessing (for
example) MySQL using ado, or MySQL using MySQLdb.
    database = create_database("mysql://username:password@hostname:port/database_name")
vs.
    database = create_database("adomysql://username:password@hostname:port/database_name")

2) Let the backend itself itself probe for the modules it might be able to use:
   try:
       import MySQLdb as db
       import MySQLdb.converter
   except ImportError:
       try:
         import adodbapi as db
      except ImportError:
         db = dummy
   db.connect('connection_string')

My feeling is that option 2 is the more pythonic way to go.
Would such code be accepted in the trunk?
--
Vernon Cole

On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 11:46 PM, James Henstridge <james at jamesh.id.au> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 10:33 PM, Grahame Bowland <grahame at angrygoats.net> wrote:
>> Hi all
>>
>> Just wondering if there is any plan for a Python 3 version of Storm.
>> I'd be interested in helping out with the port if there is one
>> planned.
>
> I am sure there is interest, but I don't think there is any fixed time
> frame yet.  We've got some pretty large Python 2 apps to support
> (Launchpad, Landscape, etc) so the 2.x version is likely to be the
> primary focus for a while to come.
>
> A prerequisite for this would be Python 3 compatible database
> adapters.  SQLite should be fine here as its bindings are in the
> standard library.  Ports of the PostgreSQL and MySQL adapters are not
> yet available though.
>
> James.
>
> --
> storm mailing list
> storm at lists.canonical.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/storm
>