Adrian Holovaty wrote: > On 12/6/05, Jonathan Daugherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >># Why can't we just allow the model class defined by the user to be >># used? >> >>That doesn't seem promote a clean separation of "table-level" >>vs. "row-level" functionality. > > > Exactly. And don't forget that we're dealing not only with > automatically-generated functions, but with automatic module-level > classes (the manipulators, ObjectDoesNotExist exception, etc.). > > Robert, if you can think of a more elegant way of keep these things > separate, that'd be great. I'm a bit stumped myself, because a module > seems to be the most appropriate Python way to keep a bunch of objects > in the same namespace. > > Adrian
I know you don't like it (I really don't know why), but a class *is* a namespace as well. It seems odd ( if we are on a magic destroying mission) to still be creating a whole parallel heirarchy of things, with all the attendant issues, just for naming nicety. If you *really* care, you could stick a module or a nested object in the class, so the generated methods would be Poll.all.get_list() or whatever. There are many different possibilities. To me, the tradeoff you seem to be making re this sanctity of seperation seems incomprehensible. Honestly, I can see very little benefit in the changes if you aren't going to get rid of generated classes. Its effectively just name churn, right?
