> Since so far only you and I have made real input here, I'd like to hear > what any of the other maintainers (or anybody else who uses this stuff) > thinks. Realistically, any of the options are survivable, so barring any > great arguments one way or the other, we should just pick one and commit > it. I don't see the functionality request as being controversial and I'm > probably putting too much effort into worrying about the fine details.
I've faced issues with sqlite3 before and the biggest issue in my case was simply being aware that using pysqlite was a quick and simple solution to concurrency and db locking issues. So making it explicit wouldn't hurt, for the sole reason that it communicates that concept (assuming of course it is documented :) Since sqlite takes advantage of the DATABASE_OPTIONS field for timeout, it would probably make sense to use # 2. -rob --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
