> But another thing, is that the whole idea of "save/update/save-or- > update", which we obviously got from hibernate, is something ive been > considering ditching, in favor of something more oriented towards a > "container" like add(). since i think even hibernate's original idea > of save/update has proven to be naive (for example, this is why they > had to implement saveOrUpdate()). we like to keep things explicit as > much as possible since thats a central philosophical tenet of Python.
Hmm, that sounds interesting. Would it have similar flush() semantics like .save(), or would it be a kind of auto-flush thing? The issues with any implicit kind of flush() are tricky. Maybe not so much for the instance being .add() ed or .save() ed, those are usually somewhat stratightforward. The tricky parts are the related instances. Would relation()-based instances also be auto-flushed() and etc. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
