Rick Morrison wrote: > On 10/26/07, *Paul Johnston* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: >> >> Ticket #573 mentions adding a field for arbitrary >> application-specific information to tables. I now have a need for >> this, so I'm prepared to do the work to make it happen. >> >> The main consideration is the name of the field, with the ticket >> suggesting "attributes". Personally I'd prefer "info", but I'm fine >> with "attributes". >> >> The other decision is what objects to add this to. I need it on >> column, and table seems sensible. Query, session, metadata have been >> mentioned, although I'd expect the requirement there is less common. >> >> So, I propose adding "attributes" to Table and Column. Any thoughts? > > I often use Session as a context placeholder, and have felt a bit > uneasy about this as you never know when some new release is going to > stake a claim on the name you've used. I know I'd feel better if > there was a name that would be kept aside.
'attributes' (QueryContext) and 'properties' (Connection) are both in use currently. Of these I prefer 'properties', but both names have the serious downside of also being the names of key ORM components. The thesaurus turned up 'notes' as another option. How does that sound? Apache uses 'notes' for their request object and that api has always seemed very clear to me. -j --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
