Because, if I just had a plain-old python class, I'd be able to implement the dependency in the class itself, I wouldn't have to write a separate property class to get that behavior. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it though.
On Feb 10, 6:05 pm, Andy Freeman <ana...@earthlink.net> wrote: > Since you're creating a property whose value really does depend on the > value of another property, it's unclear (to me) why you think that > that dependence shouldn't be an aspect of the dependent property, that > is, something that is part of its descriptor. > > That said, it's more than a little annoying that you have to type the > name of the independent property twice, once in its definition and a > second time in the dependent property's descriptor. > > On Feb 10, 9:27 am, Jason DeFontes <ja...@defontes.com> wrote: > > > Thanks for the suggestions. Neither option seems ideal to me: > > overriding Model.put() has the db.put() hole; creating a subclass of > > Property seems like a lot of leakage for logic that should really > > belong in the Model class. Oh well, I will deal if that's all there is. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine" group. To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-appengine+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
