On 10/24/2007 10:59 AM, Peter Karman wrote: > > On 10/24/2007 10:50 AM, John Siracusa wrote:
>> Anyway, I can't decide if this is a bug or not. You tell me :) What's more >> appropriate for the loader to produce for an "integer auto-increment" db >> column definition? An "integer" column that behaves auto-increment-y (the >> current behavior) or a "serial" column that also behaves that way? > > I would prefer 'serial' so that the distinction can be mapped more granularly > to a RHTMLO Field type. For example, the working column-to-field map I have > now > maps the 'serial' type to 'hidden' fields, while 'integer' maps to 'integer' > fields. [Whether serial values should be hidden in a form is, of course, a > matter of opinion, which is why the map will be configurable.] > John- I don't see this in Changes in current RDBO svn. Any chance it could be included in the next release? thanks. pek -- Peter Karman . [EMAIL PROTECTED] . http://peknet.com/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by: Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php _______________________________________________ Rose-db-object mailing list Rose-db-object@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rose-db-object
