Martijn Faassen wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 10. April 2008 19:10:49 +0200 Brian Sutherland
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just adding my few requirements:
- Integration into the component architecture in such a way that I
can specify the db connection parameters in ZCML and that
On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 05:07:56AM +0200, Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 10. April 2008 21:29:43 +0200 Brian Sutherland
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What defines if something is the instance configuration?
Isn't ZCML just another format of configuration file? I agree it's evil
to hardcode database
--On 11. April 2008 10:09:16 +0200 Brian Sutherland
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 05:07:56AM +0200, Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 10. April 2008 21:29:43 +0200 Brian Sutherland
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What defines if something is the instance configuration?
Isn't ZCML just
--On 11. April 2008 08:36:43 +0100 Martin Aspeli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 10. April 2008 19:10:49 +0200 Brian Sutherland
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just adding my few requirements:
- Integration into the component architecture in such a way
Andreas Jung lists at zopyx.com writes:
The way I use collective.lead in my book is to have it look up the
database settings in a local utility. That utility is editable via a
control panel page in Plone. I suspect that it'd be quite easy to do
something similar where the settings were
Brian Sutherland wrote:
[snip]
Unfortunately, it doesn't seem an option, right now, to avoid using ZCML
to setup database connections. So I'm not sure how you want to implement
your ideas?
collective.lead can do it without ZCML; you set up the right connection
by implementing a 'url' property
Andreas Jung wrote:
[snip]
Possibly a sane and clean solution but way of over-designed. I am
interested in simple and robust solutions that work and not in a
solution that adds more and more unnecessary layers just the sake of
having them :-)
It's a 1 liner to set up the connection in this
Brian Sutherland schreef:
Unfortunately, it doesn't seem an option, right now, to avoid using ZCML
to setup database connections. So I'm not sure how you want to implement
your ideas?
Something we did for an LDAP connection that needed the same kind of
server-dependent config: put an
On 11.04.2008, at 10:09, Brian Sutherland wrote:
Unfortunately, it doesn't seem an option, right now, to avoid using
ZCML
to setup database connections. So I'm not sure how you want to
implement
your ideas?
+1
k, i didn't read the whole thread, but we (lovely systems) use
zope.storm
Bernd Dorn wrote:
[whether configuration should be in ZCML]
although it is a few lines of code to get db uris from somewhere else,
and this could also be application code.
I'm not against ZCML, as long as those lines of code to get the db URI
from application code also exist. A good API to
On Friday 11 April 2008, Bernd Dorn wrote:
although it is a few lines of code to get db uris from somewhere else,
and this could also be application code
if you use paster, you can stick options into your pater ini script. We are
currently doing this for a setting in our app.
Regards,
On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 01:21:45PM +0200, Andreas Jung wrote:
Unfortunately, it doesn't seem an option, right now, to avoid using ZCML
to setup database connections. So I'm not sure how you want to implement
your ideas?
I have no need for ideas to be implemented. We're using SA within in
Martin Aspeli wrote:
[snip]
It's never particularly pleasant.
I think we need to make sure we make this as easy and pleasant as
possible though. This means at the very least some document that tells
you what to do. :)
Regards,
Martijn
___
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Laurence Rowe wrote:
Should one phase commit be set as the default to make it easier to
work with sqlite (and mssql)? Probably yes.
Ideally we'd guess based on the URL scheme but allow it to be set
explicitly, IMHO. Single phase would be the fallback, I guess.
I don't
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Martijn Pieters wrote:
On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 11:54 PM, Martijn Faassen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All of these are in various states of brokenness. z3c.zalchemy
doesn't work
with SQLAlchemy trunk. collective.lead works with it, but only if
you
On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 05:47:06PM +0200, Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 9. April 2008 14:15:38 +0100 Laurence Rowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
@everyone:
If we can all agree to use the same basic session and transaction
management then we should probably push for it to be included as a
sqlalchemy
--On 10. April 2008 19:10:49 +0200 Brian Sutherland
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just adding my few requirements:
- Integration into the component architecture in such a way that I
can specify the db connection parameters in ZCML and that database
reflection still works. I
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 07:31:54PM +0200, Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 10. April 2008 19:10:49 +0200 Brian Sutherland
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just adding my few requirements:
- Integration into the component architecture in such a way that I
can specify the db connection
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 09:29:43PM +0200, Brian Sutherland wrote:
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 07:31:54PM +0200, Andreas Jung wrote:
Please *NO* database specific configurations within ZCML. We're running
applications in up three or four different environments and I don't want to
maintain
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 1:31 PM, Andreas Jung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--On 10. April 2008 19:10:49 +0200 Brian Sutherland
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just adding my few requirements:
- Integration into the component architecture in such a way that I
can specify the db
Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 10. April 2008 19:10:49 +0200 Brian Sutherland
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just adding my few requirements:
- Integration into the component architecture in such a way that I
can specify the db connection parameters in ZCML and that database
reflection
--On 10. April 2008 21:29:43 +0200 Brian Sutherland
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 07:31:54PM +0200, Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 10. April 2008 19:10:49 +0200 Brian Sutherland
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just adding my few requirements:
- Integration into the
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hi there,
[I originally picked this up on a thread on zope3-users, but this
deserves its own thread here]
There are at least three approaches to SQLAlchemy integration with Zope:
* z3c.zalchemy (Christian Theune)
* z3c.sqlalchemy (Andreas Jung)
* collective.lead
The transaction manager here:
http://svn.plone.org/svn/collective/collective.lead/branches/elro-tpc/collective/lead/tx.py
Has support for TPC and savepoints. It is tested and works. The only
issue with sqlite is that the default in the branch is to use two-phase
commit and sqlite does not
Martijn Pieters wrote:
On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 11:54 PM, Martijn Faassen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All of these are in various states of brokenness. z3c.zalchemy doesn't work
with SQLAlchemy trunk. collective.lead works with it, but only if you check
out a particular branch, and not with sqlite.
--On 9. April 2008 14:15:38 +0100 Laurence Rowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
@everyone:
If we can all agree to use the same basic session and transaction
management then we should probably push for it to be included as a
sqlalchemy extension module.
I would be happy with such a solution. As
On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 9:15 AM, Laurence Rowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The transaction manager here:
http://svn.plone.org/svn/collective/collective.lead/branches/elro-tpc/collective/lead/tx.py
Has support for TPC and savepoints. It is tested and works. The only issue
with sqlite is that
Laurence Rowe wrote:
Should one phase commit be set as the default to make it easier to work
with sqlite (and mssql)? Probably yes.
Ideally we'd guess based on the URL scheme but allow it to be set
explicitly, IMHO. Single phase would be the fallback, I guess.
Should the default be for
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Martijn Pieters wrote:
On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 11:54 PM, Martijn Faassen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All of these are in various states of brokenness. z3c.zalchemy doesn't work
with SQLAlchemy trunk. collective.lead works with it, but only if you check
out a particular
Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 9. April 2008 14:15:38 +0100 Laurence Rowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
@everyone:
If we can all agree to use the same basic session and transaction
management then we should probably push for it to be included as a
sqlalchemy extension module.
I would be happy with
--On 10. April 2008 01:57:12 +0100 Martin Aspeli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andreas Jung wrote:
--On 9. April 2008 14:15:38 +0100 Laurence Rowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
@everyone:
If we can all agree to use the same basic session and transaction
management then we should probably push for
31 matches
Mail list logo
