Re: [Sqlalchemy-users] Decoupling Tables/Mappers from engines

2006-04-09 Thread Michael Bayer
On Apr 8, 2006, at 7:47 PM, Daniel Miller wrote: OK I'll admit, it may make more sense to pass a Schema object to the constructor of Table. I suppose that's fine since there's no higher-level object that will combine a group of schemas. Although we might want to think of using a differen

Re: [Sqlalchemy-users] Decoupling Tables/Mappers from engines

2006-04-08 Thread Daniel Miller
Michael Bayer wrote: On Apr 6, 2006, at 11:37 PM, Daniel Miller (said that he preferred): t = Table('mytable', columns...) something.get_connection().execute(t.select()) see i dont like that syntax at all. if im writing a program that just connects to a single database, i dont

Re: [Sqlalchemy-users] Decoupling Tables/Mappers from engines

2006-04-06 Thread Michael Bayer
On Apr 6, 2006, at 11:37 PM, Daniel Miller (said that he preferred): t = Table('mytable', columns...) something.get_connection().execute(t.select()) see i dont like that syntax at all. if im writing a program that just connects to a single database, i dont want to have to worry

Re: [Sqlalchemy-users] Decoupling Tables/Mappers from engines

2006-04-06 Thread Daniel Miller
Michael Bayer wrote: The ORM idea is interesting. we sort of have that now with the "using" thing, but i see where youre going there. I dont have a strong reaction to it yet, other than it would seriously rearrange things, and also that the style might already be possible with some extens

Re: [Sqlalchemy-users] Decoupling Tables/Mappers from engines

2006-04-06 Thread Daniel Miller
Michael Bayer wrote: another question - why exactly is ProxyEngine a hack ? if it were called "Schema", and had a "connect" method, would that make it less of a hack ? I was referring to the logic in ProxyEngine/BaseProxyEngine.__getattr__ and how inefficient that was on every engine att

Re: [Sqlalchemy-users] Decoupling Tables/Mappers from engines

2006-04-05 Thread Michael Bayer
another question - why exactly is ProxyEngine a hack ? if it were called "Schema", and had a "connect" method, would that make it less of a hack ? --- This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting language that exten

Re: [Sqlalchemy-users] Decoupling Tables/Mappers from engines

2006-04-05 Thread Michael Bayer
Dan - The ORM idea is interesting. we sort of have that now with the "using" thing, but i see where youre going there. I dont have a strong reaction to it yet, other than it would seriously rearrange things, and also that the style might already be possible with some extensions that wr

[Sqlalchemy-users] Decoupling Tables/Mappers from engines

2006-04-04 Thread Daniel Miller
[Michael Bayer] [Daniel Miller] The engine only knows how to make new connections, it does not maintain a reference to the connection (the Session does that), and it loses it's execute() method (that's the Connection's job). The engine then becomes a stateless object to assist the mapper in c