Dude, how broken is you mail client? It's attaching this thread continuation On Mon, 2008-11-17 at 15:15 -0800, Matthew D. Hancher wrote: [...] > Okay. Given all this, how do people feel about a connection_created > signal? What about a cursor_created signal, either instead or in > addition? (I have no use case for that, but if for some reason people > prefer it to connection_created it will still be sufficient to solve > my immediate problem.)
I'm in favour of connection_created. Since we don't have any compelling use-case for it, I'm not in favour of cursor_created. There's stuff you need to do when connecting to the database, so connection_created is indeed useful. But until there's really a good idea of things that need to be done when a new cursor is made, let's leave it out. We have a fairly consistent policy of not including things just because we can. > Malcolm Tredinnick wrote: > > A random thought: is there any other information worth sending along > > with the signal? Right now, the receiver is told "a connection was > > created". Anything that's likely to vary and that could be useful as a > > trigger for other actions? > > I was thinking about this, too. Right now the most important thing is > the type of database connection being created, which you can determine > from the sender, and which you can determine from settings anyway. > However, the big question in my mind is how all of this relates to the > multiple-database support that folks seem to be working on. Does > anyone from that camp want to chime in? I was contemplating this a bit more in the interim and realised the multi-db stuff will probably want to send through the name (or identifier -- whatever that means. I've been playing with a few ideas and what the ident is varies from thought to thought) when the connection is made. However, I also realised my question was a bit silly. We've set things up (by requiring **kwargs in the signal receiving functions) precisely so that we can add parameters later. This doesn't need to be resolved now, because it's not going to cause any compatibility issues. I withdraw even the random thought; it's really irrelevant to this situation. We can punt this until it becomes a requirement. Regards, Malcolm --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
