On 10/19/07, Derek Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Russell Keith-Magee wrote: > as was somewhat the intent of the question. :) i was trying to figure > out of there's an existing style i should model my evolve commands after.
That wasn't the question you asked. You asked if sqlreset should have a new option that would perform the role currently performed by the reset command. To this, the answer is no - firstly because it would duplicate the 'reset' command, and secondly because the reset command needs more fundamental fixes first. > right now i have them split: "./manage.py sqlevolve" outputs sql. > "./manage.py evolvedb" is interactive, with a view/confirm/apply model. > > i'm open to input however. The implementation of the 'outer' reset/flush just apply the SQL generated by the 'inner' sqlreset/sqlflush. This works because there isn't any user input required to generate the SQL - the only interactivity is on the outer commands in the form of a safety to prevent accidental data loss. If you are able to generate the SQL without interactivity, then the reset/sqlreset approach may be a useful approach to emulate. However, if your SQL generation process requires interactivity, you're in fairly new territory. The closest match to this approach would be syncdb, in the way that syncdb is interactive regarding creating the admin user. However, you will note that there is no inner 'sqlsyncdb'. Yours, Russ Magee %-) --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" 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/django-developers?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
