On 6/15/06, Kevin Dangoor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think you're missing some of the point, though... there's no
> "working around" to do, per se. You could almost look at ActiveMapper
> as an alternative syntax for defining Tables, that also happens to
> give you objects that let you work directly with the database. If you
> ever need to create your own Mappers you can... like Jonathan said,
> you can get the Table object straight out of the ActiveMapper...
I think this is not a big issue. Just use either one ("plain" vs.
"activemapper") in the generated model and provide an example in the
docs on how to replace the default identity-classes with the other
kind.
My preference would be "plain" by default, ActiveMapper examples in
the docs - but that could put off potential new users.
For visit-tracking (savisit) I'm guessing very few need to customize
that part so use "plain" SA there, there's no need for the
ActiveMapper dependency.
You could also use activemapper by default, and add a parameter
"--without-activemapper" to quickstart to generate a activemapper-free
model. But that may be pushing it. :o)
Arnar
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"TurboGears" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/turbogears
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
