Here is my proposal:
define the following:
request.models=(
('*','db.py'),
('*','model1.py'),
('*','model2.py'),
('default','model3.py'),
('default/a,default/b','model4.py'),
)
it specifies the order in which models should be executed. For each
row, the first item specifies whether the model should be executed for
all actions (*) for all actions in a controller (default) or only for
specific actions (default/a, default/b). The second item in the model
name.
All models not listed would be executed in alphabetical order after
those listed explicitly (backward compatibility).
request.models would default to [].
there would be a special model (execmodels.py? 0.py?) that would
always be executed before every other model and it may override the
value of request.models.
all required code should go in a single place run_models_in() in gluon/
compileapp.py
Massimo
On Jun 10, 10:56 am, Thadeus Burgess <thade...@thadeusb.com> wrote:
> I like the idea of an execmodels.py file, it could create a list of
> model names to execute.. Not yaml or cfg because that means web2py
> would require yet another library
>
> Massimo, tell me where this code *should* go and I will work on it
> since this is a very important feature to me. Lets draft up a
> specification and design first...
>
> I will make a public google doc located here
>
> https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0ActNNXQhkjU-ZGMyajJnbTdfOGZ3Z2IzOH...
>
> everyone can edit this doc
>
> What about requiring models from other apps? (i know apps arn't
> supposed to depend on each other, but it might be a good option to add
> so you *can* do it).
>
> --
> Thadeus
>
> On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 11:42 PM, mdipierro <mdipie...@cs.depaul.edu> wrote:
> > They both make a lot of sense. The former would be much easier to
> > implement and would result in faster code.
> > What do other people think?
>
> > On Jun 9, 11:32 pm, Salvor Hardin <salvor.pub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I'm new to python and web2py, so this might sound crazy but...here
> >> goes.
>
> >> Noob idea #1
> >> Why not provide an optional "exec_models.cfg" file? If it doesn't
> >> exist, execute *.py files in alphabetical order found in the models
> >> folder.
>
> >> This will maintain backward compatibility and give web2py more
> >> flexibility.
>
> >> If exec_models.cfg exists, then exec the files in the order specified
> >> inside exec_models.cfg. If you want to get fancy, allow wildcards,
> >> etc. Even better, you can also use exec_models.py or exec_models.yaml
> >> instead of simple config.
>
> >> Noob idea #2
> >> Provide web2py's version of python's "import" function. Call it
> >> "require(somefile.py)" and provide some web2py convention for
> >> somefile.py to follow. That way, you can have require() detect and
> >> decide what to do if somefile.py was already executed. Ruby has
> >> "require" and rubygems added their own "require_gem()" function which
> >> might provide useful ideas so you don't have to reinvent the wheel.
>
> >> It is late, and these are ideas that surfaced in the mind of a python
> >> and web2py noob. If you must laugh, do so with compassion. In the
> >> meantime, I'll try to read at least one python book by next Monday.
> >> Think Python is free online and looks like a quick one.
>
> >> On Jun 9, 9:32 pm, mdipierro <mdipie...@cs.depaul.edu> wrote:
>
> >> > My approach is to use
>
> >> > db_blablabla1.py
> >> > db_blablabla2.py
> >> > db_blablabla3.py
> >> > ....
>
> >> > where db_blablabla.py defiles all tables that link each other for a
> >> > specific purpose. The different files are independent and therefore
> >> > the order of execution is not important.
>
> >> > On Jun 9, 9:20 pm, Thadeus Burgess <thade...@thadeusb.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > There are some things you can do to alleviate the situation.
>
> >> > > First, you can name you models so that they execute in the correct
> >> > > order.
>
> >> > > A_db.py
> >> > > B_user.py
> >> > > C_post.py
> >> > > E_tag.py
>
> >> > > That said, I usually try to keep all related models in the same file.
> >> > > In your case you might have
>
> >> > > B_user.py
> >> > > C_weblog.py
>
> >> > > Since post and tag both belong to the same logical set of tables,
> >> > > stick them together in one file. For objects, I also might subset it
> >> > > simpler such as
>
> >> > > C_weblog.py
> >> > > C_weblog_objects.py # contains virtualfield definitions.
>
> >> > > --
> >> > > Thadeus
>
> >> > > On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 4:42 PM, mdipierro <mdipie...@cs.depaul.edu>
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > > > No. This the main issue with web2py design. This is the price we pay
> >> > > > for not having imports of models.
>
> >> > > > On Jun 9, 4:21 pm, Binh <btbinht...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > >> Hi,
>
> >> > > >> I am trying to create an orm setup like in ruby on rails with the
> >> > > >> DAL.
> >> > > >> I have a user, post, and tag model.
> >> > > >> A user has many posts.
> >> > > >> A tag belongs to a user.
> >> > > >> A post has and belongs to many tags.
> >> > > >> A tag has and belongs to many posts.
>
> >> > > >> I have 4 separate files in my models folder: db.py, user.py,
> >> > > >> post.py,
> >> > > >> and tag.py
> >> > > >> db.py contains the db connection and mail configurations.
> >> > > >> The respective model files define the table structure and have a
> >> > > >> class
> >> > > >> named after the model to implement virtual fields.
>
> >> > > >> I noticed that defining the tables with relationships in the
> >> > > >> separate
> >> > > >> files does not work properly.
> >> > > >> The model files would load which appears to be in alphabetical
> >> > > >> order.
> >> > > >> So, my db.py would load first and then post.py which fails.
> >> > > >> post.py fails to recognize the table definition in user.py, so it
> >> > > >> cannot define the belongs to relationship.
>
> >> > > >> Is their anyway to setup a model file to import all the other models
> >> > > >> without the hassle of file load order and possibly import order
> >> > > >> which
> >> > > >> rails does implicitly?
