On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 7:36:38 PM UTC+10 f.apo...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi Chris, > > On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 11:30:46 AM UTC+2 christopher....@gmail.com > wrote: > >> The question is how to add support cleanly so that both names are >> supported in 4.1? Is there a preference? Particularly how can it be be >> done to reuse code without (temporary) duplication? >> > > Good question, no idea :) I am having the same problem with psycopg3 and > this is what I did > https://github.com/django/django/pull/15687/files#diff-01f6880f77beca32ee83e011072ba73dc7eed7f9f3efdebd935af693a4fac7b3 > > -- basically I added a compatibility module which does imports from the > respective locations, with the idea of being able to simply run sed over > this in the future. I know this isn't much of an answer and the differences > between psycopg2 & 3 are rather minimal but maybe a similar approach is > viable for oracle as well? > > >> Regarding connection options, yes some things are supported with the Easy >> Connect Plus syntax. There are some connection properties that aren't >> supported, e.g application contexts (this was also true of cx_Oracle). And >> maybe more in future depending what users ask for. A generic way to set >> these, e.g with OPTIONS is a good direction. >> > > Yes, I'd use the existing backends as guidelines, common stuff like HOST > etc fits into the toplevel imo. > > Cheers, > Florian > Thanks Florian - we'll try out some ideas. Chris -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/691cf81d-493d-428b-9f3b-cc2b48a9813cn%40googlegroups.com.
