i cant change the meaning of save(), that would break compat and create confusion as these names are matching hibernate's funcitonality. with add(), we throw the hibernate notions away (which i think we should...theyre antiquated).
add() is better because you can put things in the session and nothing happens at all to them, if they were already persistent. thats why the save/update names are misleading. On Oct 31, 2007, at 12:00 PM, svilen wrote: > > On Wednesday 31 October 2007 17:51:09 Michael Bayer wrote: >> also am considering taking save()/update()/save_or_update(), which >> are hibernate terms, into just "add()". maybe ill put that in >> 0.4.1. > why not save() - having the 'save_or_update' meaning? > would anyone need the new explicit save() - which actualy has the > meaning of 'add'? > maybe rename the explicit one as add() and rename save_or_update as > save... these are more talkative names to me > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
