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
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? |