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 declarative. These ids are (and foreign keys) > mean you'll be doing something like this multiple > times on every table in our system, so I want it to be a streamline > and foolproof as possible.
It hasn't gotten across to me what the "two columns" version of this is. an illustration of the table schema and mappings for that might make it clearer what you are attempting. > > Thanks for your help, > > Rhett > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "sqlalchemy" group. > To post to this group, send email to sqlalch...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > sqlalchemy+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sqlalchemy" group. To post to this group, send email to sqlalch...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sqlalchemy+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy?hl=en.
