Hey,
Just started using 0.2.1, it's pretty neat, though converting from
objectstore to session was a bit of a mindbender; thanks to rmunn for the
tutorial though, it filled in the major points so I was able to fix it good.
Still not sure if I like the explicit session better than the implicit
On 5/29/06, Jamie Wilkinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, I want to map an instance of Person onto both tables, so that part of
the information is stored in 'account', and some in 'person'. Obviously there
will be cases where rows in 'account' don't map to rows in 'person', so we
want the
This one time, at band camp, Robin Munn wrote:
Have you looked at
http://www.sqlalchemy.org/docs/adv_datamapping.myt#advdatamapping_joins
yet? From those docs, it looks like you should be able to simply do
mapper(Person, join(account, person)) and have it work as you
expect, with a two-column
...on a holiday weekend, no less.Go, Mike, go!On 5/28/06, Michael Bayer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:Releasing 0.2.0 last night was so much fun, i just had to do itagain.Some threaded environments revealed a big blunder in the
connection pool where I forgot to restore a plain dictionary to itsproper
Hi,
iam new to sqlalchemy and i would like to ask if its possible to :
- use custom function like ... func.CUSTOM_FUNCTION
- select only specific columns
- use extension plugins
with ActiveMapper.
Thanks regards
/luke
---
All the
you can hack this with a MapperExtension after_insert rule that sets
the account_id field on the Person object after the account table
is inserted. a little ugly but probably would work right now.
right now, the mapper youve made considers the primary key of of
Person to be (person.id,
On May 29, 2006, at 11:33 AM, Brad Clements wrote:
Or in other words, why can't I use the same code under both plain and
threadlocal?
you can. __del__ and close() are always available in the exact same
way regardless of threadlocal status, both return the connection to
the pool (in the
hi list -
Pursuant to this discussion, I propose we change the close() method,
illustrated below:
result = sometable.select().execute()
result.close()
to this:
result = sometable.select().execute()
result.close_connection()
to eliminate confusion this may
On 29 May 2006 at 13:16, Michael Bayer wrote:
Pursuant to this discussion, I propose we change the close() method,
illustrated below:
result = sometable.select().execute()
result.close()
to this:
result = sometable.select().execute()
result.close_connection()
to eliminate
On 29 May 2006 at 13:09, Michael Bayer wrote:
I want to use resultset.close() in ALL of my code, so that it will
work correctly under either strategy.
go nuts. should all work fine. all the work ive done in this area
was designed specifically towards your request for this
only because close does not do the traditional thing that close
() does on a cursor object, which is simply close the cursor, but
not affecting the connection which the cursor is assocaited with.
this particular close() method insetad returns a connection to a
connection pool.
but it
I've only tested a very basic table.get() and table.select..
haven't tested updates.
(attached)
The following section of this message contains a file attachment
prepared for transmission using the Internet MIME message format.
If you are using Pegasus Mail, or any other MIME-compliant system,
fb hasnt been ported to 0.2 yet. ironically, it was only fixed in
0.1 like a week ago. feel free to give porting it a try since i dont
have firebird installed here.
On May 29, 2006, at 3:34 PM, Brad Clements wrote:
In rev 1550
File e:\prj\src\sqlalchemy\lib\sqlalchemy\databases
This one time, at band camp, Michael Bayer wrote:
you can hack this with a MapperExtension after_insert rule that sets
the account_id field on the Person object after the account table
is inserted. a little ugly but probably would work right now.
I'll try the hack now and let you know how it
it maps against multiple tables no problem as long as all the other
columns in them contain proper data; whats missing is the extra step
to automatically synchronize newly generated primary keys from one
table to foreign keys in the other. theres a method in place that
takes join
This one time, at band camp, Michael Bayer wrote:
the zblog demo has an example of mapping against multiple tables, it
maps Post objects against a join of the posts table against an
aggregate count of the comments table with some extra GROUP BY
stuff worked in, so that when you get the list
This one time, at band camp, Michael Bayer wrote:
you can hack this with a MapperExtension after_insert rule that sets
the account_id field on the Person object after the account table
is inserted. a little ugly but probably would work right now.
I'm having trouble working out where to get
This one time, at band camp, Jamie Wilkinson wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Michael Bayer wrote:
you can hack this with a MapperExtension after_insert rule that sets
the account_id field on the Person object after the account table
is inserted. a little ugly but probably would work right
Is there a way to query SA for the current set of mappers, and get the
mapper for a particular class?
Ben Bangert's contentstor module attaches the mapper to the class, but I was
wondering if there's a way to get the mapper out of SA directly and remove
the need for keeping a reference to the
19 matches
Mail list logo
