On 27/09/2011 18:10, Michael Bayer wrote:
That looks like it should ship with SA itself...
Does it?
on the website, sure :)
Many of these things are better as recipes
Meh, that used to be true of mixins.
I'm very glad that's now in the core.
The trouble with keeping this as a recipe is that if you want to use it
anywhere seriously, *every* project you want to use it on you have to:
- find somewhere to put it
- write unit tests for for
- try and remember why it's slightly different in one project than another
- generally end up cursing and swearing...
- it is easier for us to support just the "__mapper_cls__" argument rather than
a full usage pattern.
Why? How would the "full usage pattern" differ?
(you *know* I'll end up finding some way of hitting it anyway ;-) )
In particular, the recipe would need modifications if it were being integrated
with other __mapper_cls__ types of recipes,
Is there a list of these anywhere? (other than ones about to be superceded)
A recipe is also a great way to keep the library as "just one way to do it" -
the variety of overlapping use cases regarding mapping and reflection can remain as
applications on top of a more succinct set of building blocks. Makes the library easier
to understand when its boundaries are clear.
Sure, but that's not reason not to have a select of these recipes with
unit tests in, say, sa.ext.declarative.ext ...ok, I'm being facetious
with the package name, but you know what I mean.
cheers,
Chris
PS: On the flip side, it's awesome that the recipe is there and works!
--
Simplistix - Content Management, Batch Processing & Python Consulting
- http://www.simplistix.co.uk
--
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.
