On Dec 10, 1:27 pm, "Rick Morrison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This has been bandied back and forth for months, and I think it's becoming > clear that having sqla map dburl's to ODBC connection strings is a losing > battle. Yet another connection argument is not sounding very attractive to > me. > > Perhaps a simple reductionist policy for ODBC connections would be best. The > user would either specify a DSN, which would be passed to the driver, or > give a full ODBC connection string (presumably via a keyword arg) which > would be used verbatim. Anything else seems to degrade to the kind of > error-prone heuristics we see here.
You make a good point about heuristics. That describes the current implementation as well as my initial proposal involving argument values of 'windows' and 'freetds' and stuff. I'm glad you pointed that out. For the reasons I'll add below, I still favor a connection argument, but the argument values should indicate the outcome and not try to attribute behaviors to platforms when there's a lack of full understanding about what those behaviors are. I still can't think of good names. I dislike the idea of relying heavily on DSNs since I don't want SA to tell people how to manage their systems. Giving full support to DSN- less connections let's SA work with existing systems. Depending on a keyword argument seems troublesome, too, since there are so many existing configurations using SA that count on being able to specify connection information through a dburl. sqlalchemy-migrate is the one that I'm working with now. I may be overstating this, but the sense that I have is that using keyword arguments to specify connection information is something that most people don't do. I do it all the time so I'm glad it's there, but it's always felt like a workaround. > It is a big change from the current behavior of trying to "fit in" with the > way that the dburl works for other dialects, though. Jason's dialect > refactor is going to confront this problem head-on as well. Any thoughts > regarding this from that perspective? I don't know what this wll look like, so maybe the discussion is moot. I look forward to hearing about it. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
