Since you're creating a property whose value really does depend on the value of another property, it's unclear (to me) why you think that that dependence shouldn't be an aspect of the dependent property, that is, something that is part of its descriptor.
That said, it's more than a little annoying that you have to type the name of the independent property twice, once in its definition and a second time in the dependent property's descriptor. On Feb 10, 9:27 am, Jason DeFontes <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for the suggestions. Neither option seems ideal to me: > overriding Model.put() has the db.put() hole; creating a subclass of > Property seems like a lot of leakage for logic that should really > belong in the Model class. Oh well, I will deal if that's all there is. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine" 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/google-appengine?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
