Michael Bayer wrote: > > On Jul 30, 2007, at 4:58 PM, Jonathan LaCour wrote: > >> 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. > > > i think a name change is probably in order at the very least.
r3130 in the trunk implements a name change- EXT_CONTINUE will propagate the hook to the next extension or back to the base implementation. EXT_STOP will halt propagation. it's only a name and doc change: EXT_CONTINUE = EXT_PASS = object() EXT_STOP = object() EXT_STOP is just a feel-good value. the general rule of "halt on any return value but EXT_CONTINUE" is unchanged. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
