Well, my objects start out as something disconnected (eg, an email message and its associated email addresses are download via POP3), and only then am I adding everything to the database. So the download_email_messages method of my EmailClient class would return a Python list of EmailMessage objects, each containing a few lists of EmailAddress objects, and then the user of the EmailClient would save it in a database.
I want to use these ORM objects both for database access and for other purposes. Is that approach discouraged? If so, what would be a good alternative? On Jun 14, 12:06 am, "James Bennett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 11:01 PM, Karish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I want to be able to use my ORM objects (eg, EmailMessage, > > EmailAddress) in some cases without a database. For example, I want to > > write a function like download_email_messages that will download email > > messages and return an EmailMessage object which has a set of > > EmailAddress objects (for the To, From, etc.). The database is not > > involved at this stage. > > If an object doesn't represent something backed by a relational store, > why are you using an object-relational mapper to handle it? > > -- > "Bureaucrat Conrad, you are technically correct -- the best kind of correct." --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
