More of a design question, complicated by the fact that I'm a database neophyte (although I've used SA a fair bit).
I have a web application that with periodically connect to a database. I've written a wrapper for the db using SQLalchemy, but I'm unsure about the best way to use the mapped classes. In some cases the client will fetch records (mapped classes) from the database and immediately use and then dispose of them. No problems. In other cases, it will keep those fetched objects around indefinitely, perhaps late changing them and sending them back. In even other cases, it might create instances of those objects independently of the db, and use them, maybe checking them in. Put as a use case: "A Sample may be created by the web application or fetched from the database. Later on, it may be disposed of, edited or checked back into the db." So, the design question is should the mapped (database) object classes be the same as the extra-db classes? On one hand, it's a lot simpler to have a single class Sample, rather than SampleRow (the mapped class) and SampleData (an unmapped, extra-db class). On the other hand, the requirements and coding of both classes are kinda different, and I find myself changing the properties of the mapped class for better mapping and making the use of the class in non-Db contexts more awkward. Also, the SA magic has made debugging of some non-Db issues quite difficult. Opinions or issues to consider. -- Dr Paul-Michael Agapow: VieDigitale / Inst. for Animal Health [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
