On Oct 22, 2007, at 12:41 PM, Paul McNett wrote:
> You seem to be using an assumption of your own (that UserSQL is
> absolutely never be touched by the framework) to prove your point in a
> circular fashion (that you shouldn't use UserSQL unless you are
> going to
> take responsibility for everything).
>
> My whole argument is that it doesn't have to be that way. Why be so
> extremist here?
I don't think it's a question of "extremism". I think that we need
to be able to allow a developer who is comfortable with writing SQL
to control all aspects of the SQL that gets executed. The intent of
UserSQL is exactly that, and the docstring for it says so: "SQL
statement to run. If set, the automatic SQL builder will not be
used." We could be even more explicit in the docs if necessary, but I
think that that gets the point across: no automatic stuff will be
used. Having the framework determine and set a WHERE clause based on
the current parent sure qualifies as "automatic".
We need a way for the developer to tell Dabo to leave his/her SQL
code alone. UserSQL was the way that this was implemented. As it
stands now, Dabo will not touch a developer's UserSQL.
I just commented out the child test lines that define the child
UserSQL, and the tests run perfectly.
-- Ed Leafe
-- http://leafe.com
-- http://dabodev.com
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/dabo-dev
Searchable Archives: http://leafe.com/archives/search/dabo-dev
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/dabo-dev/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
