|
From: <da...@eg...> - 2005-07-14 23:27:30
|
On Jul 14, 2005, at 3:31 PM, Oleg Broytmann wrote: > > Ahem... You are talking about selectBy() with the subject > "selectOne". I > am totally confused about what you are for and what you are against! Sorry if I wasn't clear. I apologize that I merged my response to two threads into a response to just one. What I meant was: Andrew Bennetts proposed some patches which includes functionality that I've wanted in the past (e.g., selectOne()). I am *for* incorporating that functionality into SQLObject. I am *against* the way in which the patches expose the functionality to the user (i.e., the API). In particular, I am *against* adding lots of selectFOO methods, and am instead *for* extending select() to incorporate the functionality. That's my basic point. In addition, I did try to make the argument that I thought selectBy() was an ease-of-use API that might lead to more problems than it solves. I have, like Andrew, wanted to give selectBy() some of the kwargs that select() takes. But since selectBy() uses kwargs for its clause specification, this causes inherent ambiguity in what the user means. I was trying to suggest that perhaps the better approach was to allow easier use of select() instead of adding functionality to selectBy(). I hope that's clearer. For the selectOne() functionality I would suggest adding the kwarg 'unique' to select(). d |
