Gaetan de Menten wrote: > Looks good (though I didn't test it). I think we should even turn > it on by default (because the only reason to not have it IMO is > not to add an extra column to your tables, but in this case, you > already have the extra column).
Cool. I did some *very* preliminary testing and it seemed to work fine, but I'd like to get some more people testing it to make 100% sure it works properly. If you wouldn't mind, a quick test on your end would be extremely helpful :) My biggest concern is that the SQLAlchemy option itself is very poorly documented (uncharacteristically, so). I am not sure exactly how its supposed to work. Is SQLAlchemy managing the column, or is it up to the user? If its up to the user, then we should be in good shape. If not, then there could be conflicts between the extension and SQLAlchemy managing the value in the column... Anyway, I'll do some more tests when I get a chance, but some additional eyes would be great! > The only minor complaint I have is about the version which starts > at 0 or 1 depending on whether you use "enforce". Could be > confusing... Yes, but my testing failed if it didn't start at 0. I put in the check for compatibility-sake... do you think I should just make it start at 0 always now? > And, one more thing that just occured to me: the argument name > might not be best, as you don't know what it enforces. Something > like "check_concurrent" or similar might be more appropriate IMO. Good point. I've changed this in my local tree to your suggestion. -- Jonathan LaCour http://cleverdevil.org --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SQLElixir" 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/sqlelixir?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
