Hi all, and thanks for the replies: got things to work now!
FYI: If I had the choice, I would definitely use a shared primary key.
Unfortunately I am working off a legacy database so that is not an
option. Neither is renaming DB columns. So I went for the rename
columns on the mapper solution.
not an option. Neither is renaming DB columns.
i was talking of renaming the column-names of SA/app, not those in the
db.
see key arg of Column():
key
Defaults to None: an optional *alias name* for this column.
The column will then be identified everywhere in an
On Jul 16, 12:50 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i was talking of renaming the column-names of SA/app, not those in the
db. see key arg of Column():
Thanks for the tip! I tried it and that works too.
For reference, here is what my renaming the SA columns
implementation looks like:
person_table
Maybe actually asking some questions would have helped getting
replies :-)
Is this not a bug? I may be wrong, but I would consider this a pretty
serious bug, as it does not raise an error, but silently returns the
wrong object, which could lead to serious data corruption...
If it is, should I
On Jul 13, 2007, at 3:50 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i played a bit with your thing...
how do u expect the id column to appear in the Employee actualy?
do u expect to get the base person' one, or the child one? or both?
looking from the child, yes, the child one will obscure the parent
i played a bit with your thing...
how do u expect the id column to appear in the Employee actualy?
do u expect to get the base person' one, or the child one? or both?
looking from the child, yes, the child one will obscure the parent
one, but from the parent.. u'll never get the child one.
i
On Jul 13, 2007, at 2:26 AM, Yves-Eric wrote:
Maybe actually asking some questions would have helped getting
replies :-)
sorry, i totally did not see this message on july 2 ?
Is this not a bug? I may be wrong, but I would consider this a pretty
serious bug, as it does not raise an
i played a bit with your thing...
how do u expect the id column to appear in the Employee actualy?
do u expect to get the base person' one, or the child one? or
both? looking from the child, yes, the child one will obscure the
parent one, but from the parent.. u'll never get the child
