Ed Leafe wrote: > 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.
Perhaps we'll revisit this one at a later date. -- pkm ~ http://paulmcnett.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]
