Rhett Garber wrote:
This would be much easier, I could potentially be what we go with. I
think this is similar to my 'original implementation'
I just found the syntax to be a bit bothersome since the person
creating the table has to know they are creating two
columns... or not using
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 6:35 AM, Michael Bayer mike...@zzzcomputing.com wrote:
Rhett Garber wrote:
This would be much easier, I could potentially be what we go with. I
think this is similar to my 'original implementation'
I just found the syntax to be a bit bothersome since the person
On Apr 21, 2010, at 4:08 PM, Rhett Garber wrote:
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 6:35 AM, Michael Bayer mike...@zzzcomputing.com
wrote:
Rhett Garber wrote:
This would be much easier, I could potentially be what we go with. I
think this is similar to my 'original implementation'
I just found the
Rhett Garber wrote:
Oh right, sorry:
class Advertiser(Base):
__tablename__ = advertiser
id, _id = build_id_column('id', primary_key=True)
salesperson_id, _salesperson_id =
build_id_column('salesperson_id', foreign_key=ForeignKey(%s.id %
Salesperson.__tablename__))
I've run into some difficulty getting the ORM to fit into an existing
code base with some, I suppose, non-standard conventions.
One of the conventions is to not allow primary keys (auto-incremented
integers) to be exposed on the front-end servlet or template
but to maintain the original integer
On Apr 20, 2010, at 7:06 PM, Rhett wrote:
I've run into some difficulty getting the ORM to fit into an existing
code base with some, I suppose, non-standard conventions.
One of the conventions is to not allow primary keys (auto-incremented
integers) to be exposed on the front-end servlet
On Apr 20, 2010, at 7:32 PM, Michael Bayer wrote:
if you want MyClass.encrypted_id to be available in queries at the class
level, this would require a SQL function that does your encryption. See
examples/derived_attributes/ for some techniques on that.
correction, you'd probably want to
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 4:32 PM, Michael Bayer mike...@zzzcomputing.com wrote:
On Apr 20, 2010, at 7:06 PM, Rhett wrote:
I've run into some difficulty getting the ORM to fit into an existing
code base with some, I suppose, non-standard conventions.
One of the conventions is to not allow
