On Dec 10, 2008, at 2:49 PM, desmaj wrote:
> > I dislike the idea of relying heavily on DSNs since I don't want SA to > tell people how to manage their systems. Giving full support to DSN- > less connections let's SA work with existing systems. DSNs would eliminate these issues for SQLAlchemy. DSNs are the recommended way to connect with ODBC and im always confused why people don't use them. Back when I used to use ODBC heavily, it was the *only* way to connect. All of this host/port stuff with ODBC client libraries is unknown to me. this is just my 2c, im not here to say how it should be done or not. I would think that the standard SQLA host/port connect pattern should work as well if we just are aware of what kind of client library we're talking to. If we can't autodetect that, then we just use a keyword argument "?connect_type=FreeTDS". We can document all the different "connect types" somewhere and just adapt to all the newcomers that way. With DSN being the default. I definitely do not want to start allowing raw connect strings through create_engine() - if you need to do that, use the creator() function. Whats the status of 0.5, is DSN the default in trunk now ? --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sqlalchemy" 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/sqlalchemy?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
