On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 7:47 AM, rmschne <[email protected]> wrote: > Oh ... by the way, we aren't using Access as a front end to Django. > There is nothing (far as I know) in Django to front-end to! > > This app has been successfully making us money for more than 20 > years. The data side moved to MySQL a long time ago (can't remember > when) to enhance performance and security, but the relatively > sophisticated Access side remained in place and continued to evolve. > Still see no viable replacement on the horizon for Access for the > front end for use by people. There are a number of tools that have > suficient capability to replace it but all would cost a fortune to > make it happen. Instead, we're using Python/Django as a basis now for > enhanced reporting/number-crunching and future automation (which sends > us in the direction of having so many people having to use the Access > app). Had we had Python and Django in the late 1980's we'd probably > be there now. >
The thing I was trying to get across is that the model definitions is basically a contract of what kind of data is stored in the database, and every time you modify the data directly and not through the ORM, you must take extra special care not to break the contract. In your case, you actually have two contracts, one with your legacy application, and one with django, and your django contract contradicts your legacy one, so you had these problems. Cheers Tom -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en.
