Anton V. Belyaev ha scritto: >> again, im not opposed to this feature and ill patch in an adequate >> (and fully unit-tested) implementation. but have you actually ever >> *had* this problem? or is it just hypothetical ? >> > > For example, a developer modifies the metadata and checks in. Another > developer updates and finds strange problems, having the old database. >
Then, a SQL script to migrate the database schema should be provided with the check-in... Please, don't believe SQLAlchemy will help you win the Viet Nam war of computer science (*). It's supposed to help us survive. And it's a lot. I'm happily using autoload since the beginning, I've never used the Table() construct if not to replicate a couple of bugs and submit them. And I think my applications are simpler because of it, not in spite of it :-) http://blogs.tedneward.com/2006/06/26/The+Vietnam+Of+Computer+Science.aspx http://spyced.blogspot.com/2006/02/why-schema-definition-belongs-in.html (with comments from Mike Bayer, Ian Bicking and others) --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
