I have a couple of immediate comments:
[1] - with this syntax, you do not process and fields or migrate statements
(but you _could_; suggest you do)
[2] - the autofields() function seems to mash concerns in other ways also:
it handles tablename update (? why here) in addition to "autofields"; for
one thing, it does NOT do cleanup() (as define_table otherwise does) - this
is the beginnings of handling things differently in different conditions
(and a typical symptom of blurred boundaries of concerns).
Suggest you DO table name handling in _one place_, and field processing (as
you have) in one place, and consider that you only ADD "autofields" as a new
syntax for defining fields.
Having said that, it occurs to me that a comma separated text string is just
one layer of this, and it would be good to split this out, so that web2py
application developers could create things more automatically, to wit:
[3] in sql.autofields() ==> for field in fields.split(',') ---- I would make
this do NO MORE than call an individual field processing function (separate
this functionality)
[4] I would add / allow a list to be passed (that is, allow the application
developer to _already_ have split the field definitions to "the new text
specification format") --- this will be much handier for automated
processing. There are a couple of ways you could handle this, one being
parsing *fields in define_table() to first split them out to string (or
list?) vs. function types, process all the string types by some
autofields_parse() function, collect and pass the rest to SQLTable(self,
tablename, *fields)...
Make sense? I think with a little finesse this could provide more than a
"nice syntax", rather a handy way to automatically generate tables from
descriptors.
Regards,
- Yarko
2009/4/13 mdipierro <[email protected]>
>
> Try latest trunk. You can do:
>
> db.define_table('friendship: person by name birthday notnull, dog by
> name ')
>
> mind that you cannot have both notnull and unique and you cannot have
> a unique reference because I just realized we lack a validator to do
> it. I will make one and extend this..
>
> Massimo
>
> On Apr 13, 12:26 pm, mdipierro <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Actually it does just
> >
> > db.define_table('friendship'
> > ,SQLField('person_name')
> > )
> >
> > but I am about to follow your suggestion (with a slight change in
> > notation) and do
> >
> > db.define_table('friendship: person by name birthday notnull, dog by
> > name ')
> >
> > generate:
> >
> > db.define_table('friendship'
> > ,SQLField('person',requires=IS_IN_DB(db,'person.id','%(name) %
> > (birthday)',notnull = True),
> > ,SQLField('dog',requires=IS_NULL_OR(IS_IN_DB(db,'dog.id','%
> > (name)')),
> > )
> >
> > Massimo
> >
> > On Apr 13, 11:13 am, DenesL <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > Maybe too short to be useful, but when you get to references it would
> > > be nice to have:
> >
> > > db.define_table('friendship: person.name, dog.name')
> >
> > > But then, does this mean:
> >
> > > db.define_table('friendship'
> > > ,SQLField('person_name'
> > > ,db.person
> > > ,requires=IS_IN_DB(db,db.person,'%(name)')
> > > )...
> >
> > > or
> >
> > > ,SQLField('person_name'
> > > ,db.person.name.type
> > > ,db.person.name.length
> > > ,requires=IS_IN_DB(db,db.person.name)
> > > )...
> >
> > > On Apr 13, 2:16 am, mdipierro <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > > In trunk you can now do
> >
> > > > db.define_table('person : Name, Birthday date, Telephone')
> > > > db.define_table('dog: Name, Owner person, Picture upload')
> >
> > > > Is this useful? Look at the source. Is the syntax reasonable?
> >
> > > > Massimo
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"web2py Web Framework" 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/web2py?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
