On 21 Jul 2004 19:34:35 +0200, Sebastien Bigaret
<sbi...@us...> wrote:
>=20
> John Lenton <jl...@gm...> wrote:
> > On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 12:17:42 -0300, John Lenton <jl...@gm...> wro=
te:
> > > S=E9bastien, would having an option for required fields being
> > > initialized to non-null values be ok with you?
> > >
> > > In a project I'm overseeing the team finds it unnatural that a
> > > required field that isn't filled in won't raise an exception, and I
> > > thought the easy way out (while I thump them with a
> > > validate-everything stick) would be to make it optional...
>=20
> Sorry, but I'm not sure to understand: are you facing situations where
> objects with None value in required field did not make ec.saveChanges()
> raise?
>=20
> > FWIW, now they're using defaultValue to do the same thing... and maybe
> > that's enough.
>=20
> If tyhis is just a matter of initialization then yes, the default values
> should be enough, or am I missing something?
no, you're not. Just initialization. The first mail went out before I
was reminded of defaultValue... and further tests confirmed that it
was what we wanted. Should've let you know; sorry.
--=20
John Lenton (jl...@gm...) -- Random fortune:
bash: fortune: command not found
|
