[sqlalchemy] Re: SQLAlchemy 0.4 MERGED TO TRUNK
can i have an example On Jul 30, 2007, at 5:51 PM, Jorge Godoy wrote: Michael Bayer wrote: a lot. no decorators for now. Not even the way we did on TurboGears that mimics the PEAK decorators? This way, people can use @decorator(param) on Python 2.4+ and can use [decorator(param)] on Python 2.3. At the same place (before the method / function declaration). --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sqlalchemy group. To post to this group, send email to sqlalchemy@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sqlalchemy] Re: SQLAlchemy 0.4 MERGED TO TRUNK
Michael Bayer ha scritto: can i have an example http://trac.turbogears.org/browser/branches/1.0/turbogears/database.py?rev=2320 281 [run_with_transaction.when(_use_sa())] 282 def sa_rwt(func, *args, **kw): 283 log.debug(New SA transaction) 284 transaction = session.create_transaction() 285 try: [...] --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sqlalchemy group. To post to this group, send email to sqlalchemy@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sqlalchemy] Re: SQLAlchemy 0.4 MERGED TO TRUNK
Marco Mariani wrote: Michael Bayer ha scritto: can i have an example http://trac.turbogears.org/browser/branches/1.0/turbogears/database.py?rev=2320 281 [run_with_transaction.when(_use_sa())] 282 def sa_rwt(func, *args, **kw): 283 log.debug(New SA transaction) 284 transaction = session.create_transaction() 285 try: [...] Thanks Marco! Since I only have limited access to email during the day, I couldn't reply before. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sqlalchemy group. To post to this group, send email to sqlalchemy@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sqlalchemy] Re: SQLAlchemy 0.4 MERGED TO TRUNK
ive considered this so if someone is willing to submit a patch that would be great. On Jul 30, 2007, at 1:46 AM, Michael Pearson wrote: Hi, Are there plans to print warnings when deprecated methods are used? I've just spent the morning future-proofing our code against SA 0.4 and would have found this useful. I may attempt a patch myself, if people agree that it'd be a good idea. Regards, -- Michael Pearson --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sqlalchemy group. To post to this group, send email to sqlalchemy@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sqlalchemy] Re: SQLAlchemy 0.4 MERGED TO TRUNK
On Jul 30, 2007, at 1:22 PM, Jonathan Ellis wrote: I can probably do this tonight. How many people are still using 2.3? Decorator syntax would be nice for this. a lot. no decorators for now. Also it would be nice to not have to remember that I can't use genexps in SA code. it sure would. maybe in another 6 months we'll take a poll again. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sqlalchemy group. To post to this group, send email to sqlalchemy@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sqlalchemy] Re: SQLAlchemy 0.4 MERGED TO TRUNK
I can probably do this tonight. How many people are still using 2.3? Decorator syntax would be nice for this. Also it would be nice to not have to remember that I can't use genexps in SA code. But 2.3 is a pretty good base, I don't miss much else from 2.4. :) On 7/30/07, Michael Bayer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ive considered this so if someone is willing to submit a patch that would be great. On Jul 30, 2007, at 1:46 AM, Michael Pearson wrote: Hi, Are there plans to print warnings when deprecated methods are used? I've just spent the morning future-proofing our code against SA 0.4 and would have found this useful. I may attempt a patch myself, if people agree that it'd be a good idea. Regards, -- Michael Pearson --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sqlalchemy group. To post to this group, send email to sqlalchemy@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sqlalchemy] Re: SQLAlchemy 0.4 MERGED TO TRUNK
Michael Bayer wrote: a lot. no decorators for now. Not even the way we did on TurboGears that mimics the PEAK decorators? This way, people can use @decorator(param) on Python 2.4+ and can use [decorator(param)] on Python 2.3. At the same place (before the method / function declaration). --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sqlalchemy group. To post to this group, send email to sqlalchemy@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sqlalchemy] Re: SQLAlchemy 0.4 MERGED TO TRUNK
On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 04:36:50 - Michael Bayer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey ho - after around 400 revisions the 0.4 branch is merged to trunk: http://svn.sqlalchemy.org/sqlalchemy/trunk Congratulations on the progress for the next generation! That goes for you, Michael Bayer, and the team working so hard on this project. Thank you for sharing all that hard work with everyone. I wonder if you ever imagined that a project started to 'scratch an itch' would ever blossom into something so huge. (in lines of code, documentation.. and time spent!) As only one measure; the quantity of posts on this lists; shows that a lot of people benefit from and depend on your work. While I am not making any money off your blood, sweat, and tears; I still appreciate your work. I just made a donation using the paypal link on the home page. Maybe others can show their appreciation, too. Thanks again. -- michael --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sqlalchemy group. To post to this group, send email to sqlalchemy@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sqlalchemy] Re: SQLAlchemy 0.4 MERGED TO TRUNK
one suggesstion / request.
As your changing everything anyway, can u replace all important {} and
dict() with some util.Dict, and set() with util.Set?
util.Ones can point to dict/set.
The reason is so they can be further globally replaced by user with
OrderedOnes, for example to achieve repeatability - tests etc.
example ones are:
MetaData.tables
unitofwork.UOWTransaction.dependencies
unitofwork.UOWTask.objects
mapperlib.Mapper.save_obj(): table_to_mapper = {}
mapperlib.Mapper._compile_properties(): self.__props = {}
sqlalchemy.topological.QueueDependencySorter.sort(): nodes = {}
these give 90% repeatabliity, but i could not make it 100%. )-:
On Friday 27 July 2007 07:36:50 Michael Bayer wrote:
Hey ho -
after around 400 revisions the 0.4 branch is merged to trunk:
http://svn.sqlalchemy.org/sqlalchemy/trunk
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
sqlalchemy group.
To post to this group, send email to sqlalchemy@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sqlalchemy] Re: SQLAlchemy 0.4 MERGED TO TRUNK
here the changes i needed to get dbcook (abstraction layer over SA), and its tests going to some extent (70% - relations and expressions are broken): - BoundMetaData - MetaData - lots (15) - metadata.engine.echo=True - lots (14) Whats the difference between create_engine's echo=boolean and MetaData's echo=boolean ?? - import sqlalchemy.orm - i need mostly 4 things off that, but on lots of places (35): create_session, mapper, relation, clear_mappers. several more things like polymorphic_union, class_mapper etc on single occasions (2-3) *** above 3 are very common - but easy - about each SA-using file - query.get_by_whatever - geee, i didnt know i use it (3) - binaryExpression.operator - operator.xx-builtin and not text (1) - type_ vs type - too bad, now i need a key-faking dict. (3+2) why, u're afraid type() will become reserved word or what? - mapper.polymorphic_identity without polymorphic_on - i have these, assuming that having no polymorphic_on ignores anything about polymorphism anyway... now it becomes very tricky as for D(C(B(A))) when making D, it does not really know if was A polymorphic or not... it has to get base_mapper and check its polymorphic_on... (3) - Select (and i guess Clause) lost its accept_visitor - sql.compile traversing takes about more recursion levels than before - not really a problem - InstrumentedList gone = my append(key=value) hack gone.. must find the new way (1) - expression translator - simply forget, it relies on way to many internal hooks, and should be rethinked as of new Query and stuff. The hack4repeateability stopped working :-) which was expected. Same about the 'nicer echo of select' hack. ticket/497 - u forgot me.. So: the bulk of changes, line-count-wise is cosmetical; but anything depending on internal hooks/hacks is ... near-dead. i'm not sure if to go 0.4 or stay 0.3, or try being backward compatible. or add a branch. i did backward compatibility before, but now there are way too many changes now. ciao svil On Friday 27 July 2007 07:36:50 Michael Bayer wrote: Note that this version has some backwards incompatibilities with 0.3 When we get an idea as to how easily people are upgrading to 0.4, we'll figure out how aggressively we want to patch bug fixes from 0.4 back into 0.3 and continue releasing on that series. Currently we plan to keep 0.3 going as long as people need it. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sqlalchemy group. To post to this group, send email to sqlalchemy@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sqlalchemy] Re: SQLAlchemy 0.4 MERGED TO TRUNK
I'd want to make sure this didn't hurt performance first. (Seems
innocuous enough, but if it's in any sort of inner loop the extra hash
lookup might be noticeable.)
On 7/27/07, svilen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
one suggesstion / request.
As your changing everything anyway, can u replace all important {} and
dict() with some util.Dict, and set() with util.Set?
util.Ones can point to dict/set.
The reason is so they can be further globally replaced by user with
OrderedOnes, for example to achieve repeatability - tests etc.
example ones are:
MetaData.tables
unitofwork.UOWTransaction.dependencies
unitofwork.UOWTask.objects
mapperlib.Mapper.save_obj(): table_to_mapper = {}
mapperlib.Mapper._compile_properties(): self.__props = {}
sqlalchemy.topological.QueueDependencySorter.sort(): nodes = {}
these give 90% repeatabliity, but i could not make it 100%. )-:
On Friday 27 July 2007 07:36:50 Michael Bayer wrote:
Hey ho -
after around 400 revisions the 0.4 branch is merged to trunk:
http://svn.sqlalchemy.org/sqlalchemy/trunk
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
sqlalchemy group.
To post to this group, send email to sqlalchemy@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sqlalchemy] Re: SQLAlchemy 0.4 MERGED TO TRUNK
On Friday 27 July 2007 19:48:51 Jonathan Ellis wrote:
I'd want to make sure this didn't hurt performance first. (Seems
innocuous enough, but if it's in any sort of inner loop the extra
hash lookup might be noticeable.)
if lookup is made once in the start of function, should be okay.
which inner loops are so sensitive?
btw there were so many redundantly made dicts and lists before...
my profiling showed (in february or march) that redundant
function-calls kill performance, all else goes negligible.
On 7/27/07, svilen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
one suggesstion / request.
As your changing everything anyway, can u replace all important
{} and dict() with some util.Dict, and set() with util.Set?
util.Ones can point to dict/set.
The reason is so they can be further globally replaced by user
with OrderedOnes, for example to achieve repeatability - tests
etc.
example ones are:
MetaData.tables
unitofwork.UOWTransaction.dependencies
unitofwork.UOWTask.objects
mapperlib.Mapper.save_obj(): table_to_mapper = {}
mapperlib.Mapper._compile_properties(): self.__props = {}
sqlalchemy.topological.QueueDependencySorter.sort(): nodes = {}
these give 90% repeatabliity, but i could not make it 100%. )-:
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
sqlalchemy group.
To post to this group, send email to sqlalchemy@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
