Michael Bayer wrote: > well im just a little concerned that it gives people another way to > break their code.....now they can have two classes of the same name, > which will have to be in some global dictionary somewhere to match > the strings up with the classes/mappers, then itll either silently > fail when the second entry blows away the first entry, or we have to > make it throw an error. in the world of explicit mappers, having it > use strings for class names is not very useful (though obviously more > useful for SQLOb...i mean ActiveMapper :) ). i dunno i guess if i > stick it in and just dont document it maybe....
Fair enough. All good points. How about being able to pass some other kind of "Deferred" like object that takes in the class name as a string. People are highly unlikely to pass in this object and get silent errors, as opposed to a string, which I could see someone passing in by mistake. -- Jonathan LaCour http://cleverdevil.org _______________________________________________ Sqlalchemy-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sqlalchemy-users
