Re: [SQLObject] Temporary Objects (I'm going in!)

[Brad B. <br...@bb...>]

On 04/29/03 23:57, Paul Chakravarti wrote:
> 
> On Tuesday, April 29, 2003, at 01:17 PM, Luke Opperman wrote:
> >
> >4. does persisting any object persist all temp objects it touches?
> >This makes sense from the example above: create a tempPerson, start
> >adding temp employees to it, I'd like to simply persist tempPerson
> >and have it handle the rest. but does it work the other way (persist
> >one of the employees, and the whole tree/graph is persisted)? Should
> >there be an alternate way to persist just one? (In the context of a
> >transaction this becomes particularily important: when do things I
> >didn't explicitly add to the transaction but that are changed via
> >join/FK get persisted?)
> >
> 
> Although I am just an interested observer here I would say that I am 
> slightly concerned that this proposal may add significant complexity to 
> support what I believe to be a marginal set of cases.

The more iterations through my brain this discussion makes, the more I
lean towards thinking that SQLObject should leave its transaction
support as is.

I've used many of these frameworks, in both Perl and Python: Modeling,
Class::DBI, took a look at MiddleKit and finally SQLObject. What drew
me to this framework to begin with was the relatively flat learning
curve. 

I hope we keep it that way.

-- 
Brad Bollenbach
BBnet.ca