Hello,
I was reading about the CheckConstraint documentation, and it looks
promising. The examples in the docs are doing contraint with integers.
But the cool thing would be able to define you're own contrainsts using
ConstraintTypes, or already have pre-defined constraints, ie.
you mean a python-level constraint. id definitely build this as just
a callable that takes the whole insert/update criterion and just
returns true or false. all the django-niceties are frameworkisms
(which folks are free to build, put on the wiki, provide a handy
module full of as an
Thanks, I got it working. For future reference, if you have a
polymorphic relationship, in order to avoid this kind of phantom object,
you need to manually delete from both the parent collection and the
child collection, e.g.
Project (Has Many)- Node
Parameter (Subclass)- Node
to remove a
why not just include formencode support?
On 10/27/06, Michael Bayer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
you mean a python-level constraint. id definitely build this as just
a callable that takes the whole insert/update criterion and just
returns true or false. all the django-niceties are
Thanks.
I solved it by exposing connection and cursor objects via a Pyro. I
don't have any access control for individual rows in tables but it
doesn't matter for now.
But I have a different problem now. I have a simple pool on the server
side where I'm storing connections and cursors and it is
Hi,
the engine connections are actually destroyed by garbage collections.
This should happen as soon as the object is not referred anymore; thus,
one must explicitly close any connection.
It's stated so here:
http://www.sqlalchemy.org/docs/dbengine.myt#dbengine_connections - SA
0.3
as well as
That might be worth doing... the example I gave of deleting from both
lists seems to fail erratically based on when and how the lists were
referenced before removal.
For example, the following:
def test_node_polymorphism(self):
p = Project(name='p')
db.session.save(p)
p.nodes
oh sorry, do this:
engine.name
has names that match the somedb:// part of the url.
On Oct 27, 2006, at 2:58 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This mail I sent some days ago was unanswered, I guess the answer
should be pretty simple thought
TIA
sandro
Hi,
which is the correct way to
OK yeah, the relation() idea is not nearly smart enough to figure out
what you mean there, or to even support overlapping collections (i.e.
if you didnt have nodes, it could work with just algorithms and
parameters). the two extra relations could be implemented with a
custom join
Cool, that should be fine for my current application, thanks =)
-Dave
-Original Message-
From: sqlalchemy@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Michael Bayer
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 3:32 PM
To: sqlalchemy@googlegroups.com
Subject: [sqlalchemy] Re: related object
10 matches
Mail list logo
