Rob Miller wrote:
do you happen to remember where you read this? i wouldn't think this would be the case. while the sqlalchemy idioms used in the documentation and/or paster templates might vary a bit btn pylons and pyramid (specifically pyramid usually shows the use of the repoze.tm2 middleware to handle transaction commits), neither framework actually has any formal opinion about how persistence should be handled, and i can't think of any reason why you'd have to make any significant changes to how you interact w/ the database when porting from one to the other.
I think it was on this list, but I can't find it right now. It's possible that it was only about using request/response, session and context objects in model.
i don't see anything inherently wrong w/ it, as long as you're willing to accept the repercussions: you'll be more closely tied to sqlalchemy, and you'll have to either provide or mock a database session in order to test your models.
I see, this clears up my doubts. Thank you. -- Juliusz Gonera http://juliuszgonera.com/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pylons-discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to pylons-discuss@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pylons-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en.
