they said in Soft Wars: read the source, Luke...
u want everything premade?
it's what it says. no mysql in there. i've no idea about mysql.
just add it - poke here and there - and once it works for you, post it
here. i'll check it in...
On Thursday 15 May 2008 07:08:59 Lukasz Szybalski wrote:
Michael Bayer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
easy enough to build yourself a generic MapperExtension that scans
incoming objects for a _pre_commit() method.
Yeah indeed. I used this:
--
class HookExtension(MapperExtension):
Extention to add pre-commit hooks.
On 5/15/08, Yannick Gingras [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael Bayer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
easy enough to build yourself a generic MapperExtension that scans
incoming objects for a _pre_commit() method.
Yeah indeed. I used this:
--
class
speed wise, this is better: hasattr is implemented as getattr + try
except. i would do it even:
f = getattr(instance, _pre_insert, None)
if f: f()
Thus the func name is spelled only once - avoids stupid mistakes.
On Thursday 15 May 2008 17:36:52 Roger Demetrescu wrote:
On 5/15/08, Yannick
On 5/15/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
speed wise, this is better: hasattr is implemented as getattr + try
except. i would do it even:
f = getattr(instance, _pre_insert, None)
if f: f()
Thus the func name is spelled only once - avoids stupid mistakes.
Good point...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
speed wise, this is better: hasattr is implemented as getattr + try
except. i would do it even:
f = getattr(instance, _pre_insert, None)
if f: f()
Thus the func name is spelled only once - avoids stupid mistakes.
Spelling only once is the killer feature of
I am trying to setup a many-to-many relationship for two tables where
I would like to allow more natural access to the data using a
dictionary interface. The exact usage is pretty complex to explain,
but I have come up with a simple example that demonstrates the same
concept. (there is a full
I'm trying to implement polymorphic inheritance using the
sqlalchemy.ext.declarative, but the field that I want to use for the
polymorphic_on is not in my polymorphic base table, but at the other end
of a many-to-one relationship. We have items of many types, and in the
item table, we have a
On Thu, 2008-05-15 at 11:24 -0400, J. Cliff Dyer wrote:
I'm trying to implement polymorphic inheritance using the
sqlalchemy.ext.declarative, but the field that I want to use for the
polymorphic_on is not in my polymorphic base table, but at the other end
of a many-to-one relationship. We
Any idea when a .deb will be available?
http://packages.debian.org/unstable/python/python-sqlalchemy is still .4.5
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 3:02 PM, Michael Bayer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
SQLAlchemy 0.4.6 is now available at:
http://www.sqlalchemy.org/download.html
This release includes
On Thu, 2008-05-15 at 11:30 -0400, J. Cliff Dyer wrote:
On Thu, 2008-05-15 at 11:24 -0400, J. Cliff Dyer wrote:
I'm trying to implement polymorphic inheritance using the
sqlalchemy.ext.declarative, but the field that I want to use for the
polymorphic_on is not in my polymorphic base table,
Hi,
This is my first encounter with sqlalchemy. I am trying to connect to
an MS SQL server 2000 that is not on local host. I want to connect
using Integrated Security and not use a specific username and
password. Can anyone tell me the format of the connection string ?
Thanks
TK
Hi Bruce,
I'm considering a switch from pymssql to pyodbc myself in the
not-too-distance future, and this thread has me a bit curious about what's
going on. This is a subject that may affect SQL more in the future when ODBC
and JDBC drivers get more use.
I think there's two distinct questions
On May 15, 2008, at 12:12 PM, J. Cliff Dyer wrote:
How can I use this field for polymorphism? Is it possible?
polymorphic discriminators are currently table-local scalar columns.
So if you had a many-to-one of discriminators, youd currently have to
encode the discriminator to the
On May 15, 2008, at 11:23 AM, Allen Bierbaum wrote:
# WOULD LIKE - #
# Can this be done using
# - Custom join condition on input_output_type
# - column_mapped_collection
#
it can be done. Try working first with two separate relation()s using
a secondary join that filters
Hello Group,
After looking over the 0.5 migration notes and seeing that implicit
ordering is to be removed, it seems to me that it might make sense to
change the default collection class for unordered relations from a
list to a multiset. This would reinforce that unless order_by is
specified,
Hello,
I am playing around with loading data into a database using subclasses
of processing.Process so that data files can be sent to a server. I
would like to have the server fire off a process that takes care of
parsing the data file and loading the data into a data.
When I run some tests
After looking over the 0.5 migration notes and seeing that implicit
ordering is to be removed, it seems to me that it might make sense
to change the default collection class for unordered relations from
a list to a multiset. This would reinforce that unless order_by is
specified, one
mmh. between db's - maybe u're right. But the order will also change
depending on current hash-values between 2 runs on otherwise same
system... There's plenty of difficulties to get a repeatable flow for
tests etc already.
That's exactly my point in fact -- unless order_by is specified, a
On May 15, 2008, at 12:51 PM, Nick Murphy wrote:
Hello Group,
After looking over the 0.5 migration notes and seeing that implicit
ordering is to be removed, it seems to me that it might make sense to
change the default collection class for unordered relations from a
list to a multiset.
if we had a totally explicit collection class is required approach,
that would be something different (like, cant use list as a
collection unless order_by is present). We might just say in any case
that order_by is required with listbut then that might be too
steep a change for 0.4 to
Nick Murphy wrote:
mmh. between db's - maybe u're right. But the order will also change
depending on current hash-values between 2 runs on otherwise same
system... There's plenty of difficulties to get a repeatable flow for
tests etc already.
That's exactly my point in fact -- unless
TkNeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi,
Hello Tarun,
This is my first encounter with sqlalchemy. I am trying to connect to
an MS SQL server 2000 that is not on local host. I want to connect
using Integrated Security and not use a specific username and
password. Can anyone tell me the format
I think Jason hits the nail on the head with his response - my first
reaction on the initial post was that was splitting hairs to enforce the
difference between an ordered list and an (allegedly) unordered list, but I
thought it was going to be a non-starter until I read Mike's reply. It seems
it should be considered that when you use hibernate, the collection
type is explicit with the collection mapping itself; and when you use
the list type, a list-index is required (which is also a much
better name here than order_by). So there is the notion that using
a list should at all
The DSN method should work with Integrated Security as well. Here's a short
writeup of the DSN configuration:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/176378
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
sqlalchemy
On Thu, 2008-05-15 at 12:27 -0400, Michael Bayer wrote:
On May 15, 2008, at 12:12 PM, J. Cliff Dyer wrote:
How can I use this field for polymorphism? Is it possible?
polymorphic discriminators are currently table-local scalar columns.
So if you had a many-to-one of
Logic that depends on any ordering from a non-ORDER BY result is a bug,
but I don't know that the impact of presenting all users with a new,
non-standard, non-native collection type and injecting some kind of
__eq__ into mapped classes to satisfy a multiset contract is worth it
for what
Nick Murphy wrote:
Logic that depends on any ordering from a non-ORDER BY result is a bug,
but I don't know that the impact of presenting all users with a new,
non-standard, non-native collection type and injecting some kind of
__eq__ into mapped classes to satisfy a multiset contract is
My goal is to have a one-to-many relation defined using the same name
as the foreign key column underneath. So that, if my Detection
table has a foreignkey column named sensor, the following mappers
should work, I think:
mapper(Sensor, sensor)
detectionmapper = mapper(Detection, detection,
Hi All,
I want to write a query in SA which uses ORACLE 'connect' along with
joins on other table.
The query will be:-
SELECT grouprelation.grouprelationid AS grouprelation_grouprelationid,
grouprelation.parentgroupid AS grouprelation_parentgroupid,
grouprelation.childgroupid AS
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 11:37 AM, Michael Bayer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On May 15, 2008, at 11:23 AM, Allen Bierbaum wrote:
# WOULD LIKE - #
# Can this be done using
# - Custom join condition on input_output_type
# - column_mapped_collection
#
it can be done. Try working
On May 15, 2008, at 3:23 PM, Chris Guin wrote:
My goal is to have a one-to-many relation defined using the same
name as the foreign key column underneath. So that, if my
Detection table has a foreignkey column named sensor, the
following mappers should work, I think:
On May 15, 2008, at 3:54 PM, Allen Bierbaum wrote:
The thing that I am missing though is an example of using
column_mapped_collection with a many-to-many relationship. Maybe I am
just a bit slow, but I can't wrap my head around how to make that work
or more specifically, how to specify it.
On May 15, 2008, at 3:53 PM, sbhatt wrote:
Does anyone know how to write it using SA ?
CONNECT BY goes where things like ORDER BY and GROUP BY go, so is not
going to work within the WHERE clause. It is as of yet unsupported by
the select() construct so you'd have to go with
I don't want to use the DSN method. The DSN would not be configured at
some client machines etc etc. ..
TK
On May 15, 1:30 pm, Rick Morrison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The DSN method should work with Integrated Security as well. Here's a short
writeup of the DSN configuration:
You really should reconsider. DSN is a much easier setup method than trying
to specify a myriad of ODBC options in a connection string. There's a GUI
user interface for setting up DSN's etc. It's the simpler and better
supported method.
If you really are dead-set against it, you'll need to use
The following works for me :
mssql://:@host/catalog
It seems to use automatically SSPI auth if you don't specify any user and
password.
Olivier
2008/5/15, TkNeo [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I don't want to use the DSN method. The DSN would not be configured at
some client machines etc etc. ..
TK
Greetings,
I just started playing with declarative_base. I have one table on
which I would like to have a unique contraint on two columns. Is this
possible using declarative?
--
Carlos Hanson
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 3:43 PM, Carlos Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Greetings,
I just started playing with declarative_base. I have one table on
which I would like to have a unique contraint on two columns. Is this
possible using declarative?
--
Carlos Hanson
I think there are two
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 12:51 PM, Yannick Gingras [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
TkNeo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi,
Hello Tarun,
This is my first encounter with sqlalchemy. I am trying to connect to
an MS SQL server 2000 that is not on local host. I want to connect
using Integrated Security
41 matches
Mail list logo
