Re: RFC: Extend psycopg2.connect to accept all valid parameters?

From: Daniele Varrazzo <daniele(dot)varrazzo(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Federico Di Gregorio <fog(at)dndg(dot)it>
Cc: "psycopg(at)postgresql(dot)org" <psycopg(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: RFC: Extend psycopg2.connect to accept all valid parameters?
Date: 2011-11-17 11:49:02
Message-ID: CA+mi_8aztmSMDkGs=qG8fNxnvpCMmGi-6MQg5hi2EpzpFoUfsw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: psycopg

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Federico Di Gregorio <fog(at)dndg(dot)it> wrote:
> On 17/11/11 12:39, Daniele Varrazzo wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 11:18 AM, Federico Di Gregorio <fog(at)dndg(dot)it> wrote:
>>
>>> > Never said doing it in Python is wrong. In fact anything that isn't
>>> > time-critical (type conversions, etc.) at this point is OK in Python.
>> I was also thinking that having the pair connect()/_connect() is
>> perfect for regression testing: _connect() can be replaced with a stub
>> to test the arguments conversion without really connecting.
>
> Wunderful. But please don't rename the C function. Just "import as", to
> avoid breaking API (not that I ever encountered Python code using
> _psycopg.so directly but one never knows...)

I wanted to rename it because I've dropped its support to the keyword
arguments: the interface (which is not an API: if sb is using
_psycopg.so he is doing at his own risk) is broken anyway. And because
we are not going to use the C keyword codepath, I want to drop it
altogether: it is not going to be maintained anymore.

-- Daniele

In response to

Responses

Browse psycopg by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Federico Di Gregorio 2011-11-17 14:34:13 Re: RFC: Extend psycopg2.connect to accept all valid parameters?
Previous Message Federico Di Gregorio 2011-11-17 11:41:34 Re: RFC: Extend psycopg2.connect to accept all valid parameters?