[sqlalchemy] Re: Implementing fine-grained access control

2017-06-05 Thread Kiran Jonnalagadda
On Tuesday, 23 November 2010 01:18:53 UTC+5:30, Dan Ellis wrote: > > Thanks for those tips. InstrumentationManager sounded like the best > thing, so I've gone with that idea. Here's the basic structure of it > for anyone who's interested: http://pastie.textmate.org/1318179 > > Thanks again,

[sqlalchemy] Re: Implementing fine-grained access control

2010-11-22 Thread Dan Ellis
On Nov 22, 11:15 am, Michael Bayer mike...@zzzcomputing.com wrote: I'm assuming the reason for proxy objects is so that usage would continue to look like:         blogpost.body = new body Right, exactly. So for that kind of thing, if you want certain operations to proceed under the

Re: [sqlalchemy] Re: Implementing fine-grained access control

2010-11-22 Thread Michael Bayer
On Nov 22, 2010, at 12:21 PM, Dan Ellis wrote: If I use properties with the same names as the columns, how can I avoid them clobbering the actual columns? I did try subclassing DeclarativeMeta to enforce column_prefix='_', but it I think I misunderstood what that does, because it made

[sqlalchemy] Re: Implementing fine-grained access control

2010-11-22 Thread Dan Ellis
Thanks for those tips. InstrumentationManager sounded like the best thing, so I've gone with that idea. Here's the basic structure of it for anyone who's interested: http://pastie.textmate.org/1318179 Thanks again, Michael. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google