>On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 09:41:11AM -0500, Gerrat Rickert wrote:
>> [snip]
>> >http://twistedmatrix.com/trac/ticket/3956
>> >Add arraysize option to runQuery in adbapi
>>
>> Well, as the guy who initiated this ticket, I'm certainly using
>> adbapi.ConnectionPool with cx_Oracle. I'm not currently using any
>> placeholders named "arraysize" or "cp_arraysize".
>
>But you are using the keyword-parameters-as-query-parameters extension
>that cx_Oracle provides?
No, I am not. I probably didn't even notice this style was allowed, and
likely wouldn't have used them even if I noticed. ('davep' mentioned
on the ticket that he was using named binds, but didn't have an issue
with using cp_arraysize as a keyword in runQuery)
[snip]
>I think the two positions here would be:
>
> a: adbapi.ConnectionPool is designed to wrap DBAPI2 modules; keyword
> parameters to cursor.execute() are not allowed in DBAPI2; therefore
> adbapi.ConnectionPool can use keyword parameters for itself.
> b: adbapi.ConnectionPool has never really enforced DBAPI2 compliance,
> so people have been using it with all kinds of crazy DBAPI2
> extensions and we should allow people to keep doing so as much as
> possible.
>
>My cunning plan (which has somewhat backfired) was that one of these
>alternatives would seem sane, and one would seem ridiculous, and once
>the mailing list decided which was which I could go back to the ticket
>with that decision.
>
>The way things are at the moment, I'm leaning towards (b), but I
believe
>the developer who's worked on the patch leans towards (a) and I don't
>feel I have the authority to demand a change of approach. I left the
>ticket awaiting review, in the hope that somebody with more authority
or
>firmer opinions would come along to review it (it's a pretty small
>change!), but the ticket's been sitting there for weeks now - I felt
>I needed to do something more drastic to help it make progress.
Thanks for trying to help push this along, Tim. I have no firm opinion
either way. For me any solution is better than none. There doesn't
seem
to be any huge objections to using a "cp_arraysize" keyword param in
runQuery,
so it might not be the purest solution, but does seem practical.
_______________________________________________
Twisted-Python mailing list
Twisted-Python@twistedmatrix.com
http://twistedmatrix.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/twisted-python
