On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 07:17:19AM -0700, Michael Bayer wrote:
> so i didnt add filter() because i didnt feel like getting all the bug
> reports from people who have instance variables called "filter", and
> also because my plan was to do away with *all* the select/filter/etc
> methods and have everything go through query().
Right. I didn't think of that possibility. Do I read that as
"assign_mapper will die anyway" because you have an implicit "PITA" tag
on it already? ;)
> but if we dont think its a problem im certainly not going to hold back
> assign_mapper from what people want it to be, im just putting out the
> issues there and you all can decide.
I think I will refrain from using assign_mapper in the future. I'd like
to use .filter() because it's great and I'd rather use the explicit
mapper syntax instead of the (barely easier) assign_mapper syntax just
to be consistent. Sometimes using the assign_mapper because it's simpler
but in other places use the "mapper" methods because they are more
powerful doesn't really look consistent. If you asked me: either provide
these methods on the assign_mapper, too, or let the assign_mapper die
sooner or later. Am I right that we are just talking of
john = session.query(User).get_by(name="john")
versus
john = User.get_by(name="john")
here? I think I can live with that. Inserting/creating new objects looks
the same with both mapping methods AFAIK. So we are talking about
wasting 15 bytes in every query. I'll go waste some bytes then.
Cheers
Christoph
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
