[DB-SIG] WHat's the status of DB modules and datetime.py supp ort?

[Federico Di Gregorio]

Il mer, 2003-12-31 alle 18:14, Vernon Cole ha scritto:
[snip]
>     At that time, Jon Franz remarked: " Unfortunately, I think you've fallen
> victim to some of the hubris present in the SIG. Many of the people here
> seem perfectly fine with the status quo.  Perhaps they worked on DB-API
> specifications, and thus feel protective of it?

it can be. i *only* worked at the last revision of the dbapi when some
parts where clarified and there were some small additions. and i don't
feel protective. :) maybe people that have contributed much more than me
feel that forcing tens of developers to upgrade adapters to a new api is
a bad thing.

my oppinion is that the part of the dbapi related to typecasts is
flacky. it does not even mandate that it should be possible to re-insert
an object coming from the db (for example an mx.DateTime wrapper). i
don't care if the dbapi does not specify what kind of object should
represent a date, but i care when it does not even tell what the
properties of such an object are.

federico
 
-- 
Federico Di Gregorio                         http://people.initd.org/fog
Debian GNU/Linux Developer                                fog at debian.org
INIT.D Developer                                           fog at initd.org
  We are all dust, Saqi, so play the lute
                    We are all wind, Saqi, so bring wine. -- Omar Khayam
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Questa parte del messaggio =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=E8?= firmata
Url : http://mail.python.org/pipermail/db-sig/attachments/20040101/adcb640d/attachment.bin