Michael Bayer wrote: > its a model taken from the way event loops usually work; any consumer > along the event chain is allowed to say, "ive consumed the event" and > stop further handlers from dealing with it. we can certainly change > the names around into something less ridiculous. unfortuantely, > changing it so that "no" return value, or None, does *not* short > circuit the chain runs a slight risk that someone is actually using > it that way. So we might need to change it such that if your > before_insert returns None, an error is raised, and youre forced to > return a specific value indicating the next activity...otherwise > someone's upgrade might silently fail.
Fair enough, I suppose. I think I can get over it, for the most part. It might just be an issue of cognitive dissonance because of the naming convention or how its described in the documentation. -- Jonathan LaCour http://cleverdevil.org --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
