On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 8:01 PM, Daniele Varrazzo <daniele.varra...@gmail.com> wrote: > On May 19, 2013 5:10 PM, "Vernon D. Cole" <vernondc...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Please don't just take your ball and go home. That will not stop the ball >> game, but it will rain on it. Work with us. > > I have expressed my views about how the idea of switchable placeholders is > ill thought and why qmark and named don't play well together. If dbapi > decided to make qmark mandatory qmarkpg would be our dbapi3 driver while > psycopg would stay dbapi2.
Vernon, because I know my communication skills are not the best and I probably cut my sentences too short: don't see my position as "I'm taking the ball home and not playing with you anymore". You have discussed two solutions in this thread and on these I have my opinions: - a single placeholders style would be ok but who has proposed it should be specify it in a complete and unambiguous way, not first decide to go that way and then hope in a miracle - a switchable grammar is bad, and who has proposed it should be aware that makes thread safety at level 2 (sharing the connection) impossible. - if a non-backward compatible road is decided, an update path to survive the period of coexistence of the two standards as has been with py2.6 and 2to3 in the long road for py3: none of that has been proposed. What I ask is, everybody, please, show some responsibility. Think about the consequence of your decisions. The dbapi is used by *everybody* who uses python and any database. Michael: your only observations are "the feature X (or its abolition) would make SQLAlchemy n lines of code smaller". Well, guess what, proposing to sacrifice useful features because of use case is absolute selfishness. My main responsibility is for psycopg2 users, but I'm not against the dbapi evolution, and I'm not against working (as I've always done, for free) writing code to meet the expectation of a solid and standard-compliant driver. My choice of responsibility is to meet the request of a dbapi3 to use a non-backward-compatible placeholder style by developing a dbapi3 compliant wrapper module, leaving Psycopg dbapi2 compliant, and to talk you out of switchable placeholders. Mine is the only suggestion of an upgrade path that has been proposed in this thread. So, please, be responsible: the dbsig has too little active users, I believe really too little for the amount of responsibility it brings. You have the duty to be more responsible than this, throwing balls of mud at the wall and see if they stick will only cause problems at massive scale and most likely will leave dbapi3 discredited and ignored. -- Daniele _______________________________________________ DB-SIG maillist - DB-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/db-sig
