well i can just put the string thing in, and i generally wont mention it much.
if we're putting in strings, shouldnt people be able to specify modulenames as well ? i.e. "somemodule.SomeClass" ? On Jun 15, 2006, at 12:52 PM, Jonathan LaCour wrote: > 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 > Sqlalchemy-users@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sqlalchemy-users _______________________________________________ Sqlalchemy-users mailing list Sqlalchemy-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sqlalchemy-users
