Ed Leafe wrote:
> Modified: trunk/dabo/db/dCursorMixin.py
> ===================================================================
> --- trunk/dabo/db/dCursorMixin.py 2009-05-09 17:44:02 UTC (rev 5209)
> +++ trunk/dabo/db/dCursorMixin.py 2009-05-10 21:38:31 UTC (rev 5210)
> @@ -19,6 +19,8 @@
> class dCursorMixin(dObject):
> """Dabo's cursor class, representing the lowest tier."""
> _call_initProperties = False
> + # Make this a class attribute, so that it is shared among all instances
> + _fieldStructure = {}
>
> def __init__(self, sql="", *args, **kwargs):
> self._convertStrToUnicode = True
> @@ -49,8 +51,6 @@
> self._blank = {}
> # Flag for indicating NULL default values were set
> self._nullDefaults = False
> - # Holds the result of getFields() for each table/sql
> combination.
> - self._fieldStructure = {}
> # Writable version of the dbapi 'description' attribute
> self.descriptionClean = None
> # Last executed sql params
I just wanted to highlight the fact that this commit is potentially dangerous,
as I
know you are aware. I don't understand, at first glance at least, why you want
_fieldStructure to be the same dict for all cursors descended from
dCursorMixin.
Doesn't it need to contain the field structure for *this* cursor and not *all*
cursors?
>>> bizOrders = self.getBizobj()
>>> bizLines = bizOrders.bizOpenings
>>> print bizOrders._CurrentCursor._fieldStructure
{':::select value, typ_ from _prefs where name=?': ()}
>>> print bizLines._CurrentCursor._fieldStructure
{':::select value, typ_ from _prefs where name=?': ()}
>>> print id(bizOrders._CurrentCursor._fieldStructure)
26508864
>>> print id(bizLines._CurrentCursor._fieldStructure)
26508864
Paul
_______________________________________________
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/[email protected]
