On Jul 13, 2007, at 11:15 AM, svilen 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 one, but from the parent.. u'll never get the child one. >> >> yeah actually, playing with this some more, hes right. even with >> the "fix" i put in, your mapper still is munging the two distinct >> "id" values into one column attribute, "id", which still creates >> problems. you still have to: >> >> a. name the columns differently >> b. join them together on a foreign key >> c. name them distinctly on your mapper: > would it be enough for him to > - rename the property in mapper (i guess not) thats what i meant by "name them distinctly on the mapper". the trunk issues a warning message now if a conflict of this nature is detected (and a few unit tests are getting it) > - rename/alias the column that SA is using (and not the one in the > DB) that would probably work too. its just the attributes on the class that are conflicting in this case. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sqlalchemy" group. To post to this group, send email to sqlalchemy@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
