On Sep 11, 8:15 am, mtrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd like to propose that we fix up the abstract BaseDatabaseWrapper
> class so that it actually has all the hooks it needs.
To be slightly pedantic, if all the methods in a class contain an
implementation, it's not an abstract base class,
On Thu, 2008-09-11 at 13:17 -0700, mtrier wrote:
> Malcolm,
>
> Thanks for the nice reply.
>
> On Sep 11, 2:08 pm, Malcolm Tredinnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > Why? If your reason is self-documenting code for somebody implementing
> > an external backend, we can probably work something o
Malcolm,
Thanks for the nice reply.
On Sep 11, 2:08 pm, Malcolm Tredinnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Why? If your reason is self-documenting code for somebody implementing
> an external backend, we can probably work something out.
Let me be more concrete then. I went to implement a backend.
On Thu, 2008-09-11 at 08:15 -0700, mtrier wrote:
> I'd like to propose that we fix up the abstract BaseDatabaseWrapper
> class so that it actually has all the hooks it needs. Right now the
> two missing items I'm seeing are the absence of validation and
> introspection. There is the expectation
I'd like to propose that we fix up the abstract BaseDatabaseWrapper
class so that it actually has all the hooks it needs. Right now the
two missing items I'm seeing are the absence of validation and
introspection. There is the expectation that the implementations will
have these and implement th
