Alright, merge() it is. That's kind of what I was leaning towards, as it seems that it would be the easiest (at this point) to implement. Thanks for weighing in, and thanks again for a great library.
-Jeff On Jul 18, 2:12 pm, Michael Bayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jul 18, 2008, at 11:47 AM, Jeff wrote: > > > I think that I'm using sessions wrong. I know I should be creating a > > new session for every request from PB-- but then how do I store a > > persistent copy of the Person object in the Avatar? Should I create a > > new session each time and use session.merge()? I should probably > > *not* use contextual sessions, as, if I understand that correctly, it > > wouldn't only help for a singly-threaded program. I don't need to > > access the database asynchronously, so I think that makes things > > simpler. > > if you have some kind of long running ORM-mapped instances that need > to participate in multiple sessions on an ad hoc basis, you use > merge() to get them in. It produces a copy of the object local to > that session, which wont be messed with by anything else. You can > only use contextual sessions if you've designed a contextual function > that interacts brilliantly with twisted's concurrency model. In this > case, such as, per-Avatar; assuming the Avatar corresponds to exactly > one single process of work (i.e. no concurrent access). You > definitely do *not* want to use the default thread local behavior > since Twisted implements concurrency without threads necessarily being > involved. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
