I don't think that two dicts would be that "out of hand", for an average
schema, say 50 tables x 10 cols, with 8-16 bytes each for each dict
(how big is an empty dict anyway?), you'd be looking at 50 * ((10*2) + 1) *
16 = about 16.8K of memory. Not that big of a deal.
But you're right, you don't two, or even one. There is already a perfectly
good dict to use for this stuff -- the __dict__ of the instance itself. How
about something like these methods on Table() and Column():
class Table(object):
....
def userdata_get(key):
return self.__dict__[('userdata', key)]
def userdata_set(key, v):
self.__dict__[('userdata', key)] = v
...
These are a bit hacky, but something like this, along with similar methods
for extension data, and you're there.
On 11/1/07, Michael Bayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> sorry, i havent been following. two++ dicts ?! this is getting out of
> hand. if we have to have any dicts at all, it would be just one dict. and
> also, it should be proxied through a property so that if you dont access it,
> its never even created. we have this on ConnectionFairy right now and its
> called "properties". I'd vote for some extremely neutral word like "attr",
> and we put it on Table/Column/ConnectionFairy, and we're done. i think the
> total usage for these dicts is very low....if we are concerned about
> extensions colliding with user data in these dicts, then we'd also be
> concerned about extensions colliding with other extensions, and mutliple
> dicts arent helping in that case anyway. keys can be placed as tuples
> (such as ('myext', 'somekey')) if namespace collisions are a concern, but
> that kind of thing has to be done by conventions regardless.
> On Nov 1, 2007, at 10:40 AM, Rick Morrison wrote:
>
> That sounds reasonable to me; my knee-jerk thought was that we might need
> to worry about memory usage, but these references are only on low-count
> instances like tables, columns, sessions and mappers, not ORM object
> instances.
>
>
>
> On 10/31/07, Paul Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Ah sure, so it's to be a namespace for namespaces, a shared dict()
> > > parking lot. Got it.
> > >
> >
> > How about having two dicts? One is purely for user data, libraries and
> > such never touch it. I suggest "userdata".
> >
> > The other is for use in extensions and stuff, say "extdata".
> >
> > Paul
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
