[DB-SIG] Remaining issues with DB API 2.0

[Greg Stein]

Andy Dustman wrote:
> ...
> > > The part about multiple paramstyles should not be included. A database
> > > should take just one style and be done with it. Higher levels can
> > > perform the appropriate mappings.
> >
> > Andy ?
> 
> Yeah, sure. There's no database that supports multiple styles at this
> time, though the new MySQLdb could, since it is using the % string
> operator anyway. Maybe I'll slip that in as a separate method or
> something.

That just doesn't feel right, but hey... it's your module :-)

(IMO, the Python way of "one way to do things" keeps things clean and
simple)

>...
> The current positional parameters really sorta cramp my style a bit,
> though I have worked around it. If it were legal for me to define my
> connect() to only take keyword parameters, I'd be happy, though I need to
> renamed the password parameter somehow; my design for the C module has
> been to keep it very close to the C MySQL API. Well, I'll work it out.

This is what I've been pushing for. You SHOULD be able to define the
connect() HOWEVER you want. It changes so dramatically from one database
to the next that we should NOT attempt to specify anything about it
beyond "connect() takes some parameters". Keyword, positional, what
names, what defaults, etc should not be specified.

My simple counterpoint is a DBM database that simply takes a filename.
And I hope that I don't have to point out that DBM databases *are* in
the scope of the DB-SIG efforts and (hopefully) within the design space
of DBAPI.

Cheers,
-g

--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/