This sounds like a nice idea. In the past I've also thought about
having Store.add takes multiple objects to insert using the same
statement. If we could land your #1 this wouldn't be necessary.
The question of what Store.add should return in such a case would
also need answering: currently it returns the added object, so you
can do:
thing = store.add(Thing())
Returning the list of objects added could work:
thing1, thing2 = store.add(Thing(), Thing())
Actually, we could provide this multiple-object version of Store.add
without fixing this bug, but I've always thought of it in the
context of the behaviour described here.
Also, I've unlinked storm/trunk from this bug since we use branch
linking to link the branch with the fix for the bug, intended to
land in trunk.
This sounds like a nice idea. In the past I've also thought about
having Store.add takes multiple objects to insert using the same
statement. If we could land your #1 this wouldn't be necessary.
The question of what Store.add should return in such a case would
also need answering: currently it returns the added object, so you
can do:
thing = store.add(Thing())
Returning the list of objects added could work:
thing1, thing2 = store.add(Thing(), Thing())
Actually, we could provide this multiple-object version of Store.add
without fixing this bug, but I've always thought of it in the
context of the behaviour described here.
Also, I've unlinked storm/trunk from this bug since we use branch
linking to link the branch with the fix for the bug, intended to
land in trunk.