Re: [Modeling-users] Roadmap to 0.9 - connectionDictionary

[Mario R. <ma...@ru...>]

On mercredi, avr 23, 2003, at 12:25 Europe/Amsterdam, Sebastien Bigaret=20=

wrote:
>         Hi,
>
> Mario Ruggier <ma...@ru...> writes:
>> While we are making changes to the model... ;)
>>
>> - I really do not like having the connectionDictionary written out=20
>> all over
>> the place in xml files, some of which generated and copied around.
>> Is it possible to externalize this? (Maybe I am missing something?)
>> The connDict should at maximum be written on disk only once (this
>> will automatically be possibly with PyModels...).
>
>   You're right. In fact there is also a problem with PyModels: they=20
> will
>   contain passwords, and be installed in the standard python path. By
>   default, installation will make them world-readable, which is not=20
> good
>   either.

Yes, definately a problem.

>   I suggest a env. variable poiting to a specific init-file read by
> ConfigParser and changing the models' connection dictionary when they
> are loaded --see tests.utils.parseConfigFile_and_updateModel() and
> tests/test.cfg for an example of this technique.
>
>   Does it sound reasonable? This can be easily done, and it will meet
>   the exact requirements you're pointing out. I guess we can make it
>   happen for 0.9.

Would be wonderful way to go. This case will also make encrypting
of password less necessary.

>> Also (a different request) passwords should not be written in the=20
>> clear.
>> Is it possible to send encrypted passwords to the db server?
>
>   I've no idea -- if somebody knows what is possible w/ postgresql and
>   mysql, please tell. Otherwise we'll have to search the official
>   docs. I suggest for we forget this for 0.9, though. Could you fill =
in
>   a RFE?

Do not know what the db's support.
Can wait, and may even not be necessary with the scheme proposed above.
But I will fill a request...

>> - Another minor request, that can wait; would it be possible to make
>> entity/@name the default for both entity/@className and=20
>> entity/@externalName,
>> should these two not be specified in the XML model?
>
>   It's not difficult at all (it's already done in the ZModeler). Now I
> wonder whether it is a good idea to change a model while loading it at
> runtime. Dunno why, but this hurts me a little for xml files, however=20=

> it
> seems to make sense for the coming pymodels... Oh well, I'm confused
> now, let's think a little more about it.

This can definately wait.

>   BTW: the default for entity/@className would preferably be
>        Entity.externalNameForInternalName(entity/@name)
>
>
>         Cheers,
>
> -- S=E9bastien.

mario