On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 11:31 PM, Michael Bayer <mike...@zzzcomputing.com> wrote: ... > > I should look at this more closely, took a brief glance. One thought I had > was why not do the "switch the schema" thing within Engine.connect(), at > least there you know which engine you're dealing with.
Ok I'll try this. I was not sure it was the proper place to do the initialization of the schema > Though I don't really understand how this is organized anyway, the query() > function for example seems a little weird, wouldn't you want this to be > transparent at the Engine level ? Yeah sure -- that's the optimal goal. I will try to refactor everything as a custom Engine I guess, that handles/initialize its own set of pools, > There should be a simple way to make two engines talk to one pool and switch > the "schema" based on each engine. Maybe some context to be provided to the > checkout event- possibly a small API change. Will try and come back ;) Thanks > > -- > 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. > > -- Tarek Ziadé | http://ziade.org -- 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.
