On May 27, 2009, at 12:39 PM, Dimmich Damian wrote: > Great :). So, what needs doing to get Enum support? The ticket, > which is part of the 0.5.5 roadmap mentions adding tests, would > having tests be sufficient for getting it into 0.5.5?
tests plus the cleanup discussed. > > > Is it still worth writing a posgres/enum PGEnum type for 0.5.x and > integrating it with the patch that is in the ticket above? I have > no idea how hard it would be to modify 0.5 to support an enum type > in a databases colspecs.. It would seem that the approach in the > ticket would be able to expose the same interface in 0.5/0.6 even if > the internals changed. the approach is more or less the same for 0.5 and 0.6. Yes, there would be a PGEnum in the postgres.py module. > > > Cheers, > Damian > > On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Michael Bayer <mike...@zzzcomputing.com > > wrote: > > > On May 27, 2009, at 12:09 PM, Dimmich Damian wrote: > > > Would it, based on the above assumption, not be possible to have a > > generic enum type that figures out what to do based on what type of > > database we are connected to without needing to specify MSEnum or > > the currently ficticious PGEnum? Or is this what you are suggesting > > and I have misunderstood it? > > that's what im suggesting, since that's how all of our "regular" types > work anyway. You specify "String", when it comes time to do something > database specific it imports PGString or similar. 0.6 has scaled > down the need for dialect-specific types but the concept is the same. > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 sqlalchemy+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
