On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 8:56 PM, Malcolm Tredinnick < malc...@pointy-stick.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-03-10 at 12:21 -0500, Adrian Holovaty wrote: > [...] > > One ugliness about this is that it has to monkeypatch the settings > > file in order to change the DATABASE_NAME, before passing it to > > DatabaseWrapper._cursor(). So my proposal is to change > > DatabaseWrapper._cursor() to accept a settings *dictionary* instead of > > a settings *object*. > > I think the direction is a good one. Something that far down the chain > probably shouldn't have a hard dependency on settings. We insulate the > users from needing to pass around settings everywhere manually, but it's > not too onerous to do so ourselves. > > Whether you pass the dictionary to _cursor or to the constructor as Alex > proposes is for you to decide, I think. We can evolve that over time if > we need to. > > Regards, > Malcolm > > > > > > I've posted a patch, but I'd like to here from one of the external DB backend maintainers, I know we technically don't have any backwards compatibility requirement here, but I don't think we want to jerk them around too much. Another thing is I want to encourage all external backends to use DATABASE_OPTIONS for extra options, rather than additional settings, that way they can be DB specific once we have multidb. Alex -- "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." --Voltaire "The people's good is the highest law."--Cicero --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
