On Nov 9, 2007, at 7:16 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
huh? it dies here. r3727 or 3760 all the same, py2.5..., did remove
all
*pyc
the test is committed in r3763.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
On Nov 10, 2007, at 1:44 AM, david wrote:
Here's an example - 2 tables author_t, and keyword_t
author_t = Table('author', meta,
Column('authorkey', Unicode(35), primary_key=True),
Column('lastname', Unicode),
Column('firstname', Unicode),
Obviously I've used a very basic feature (rollback) without knowing
exactly what it does. Even RTFM didn't clearify all.
---
Problem: Using the ORM, we delete an object x.
Since another object (y) is referencing x, SA clears out the
ForeignKey in y pointing to x
On Nov 10, 2007, at 11:05 AM, Nebur wrote:
Obviously I've used a very basic feature (rollback) without knowing
exactly what it does. Even RTFM didn't clearify all.
---
Problem: Using the ORM, we delete an object x.
Since another object (y) is referencing
Hi Mike -
That did the trick!
But, the strange thing is, if you note the illustration above, for
both situations I was selecting on a key, and there was only a single
row for each. Why would one require the result.close(), and the other
not?
Yes, I wasn't sure the error is that all important
On Nov 8, 2007 7:30 PM, Paul Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I have isolated the problem a little bit more: my column is defined in
the MSSQL server as a user defined type which is based on VARCHAR.
Ok, so in this case you'd like SA to return a python unicode object when
a
On Nov 9, 2007, at 11:05 PM, iain duncan wrote:
# many to many of collection-products to products
collections_products_table = Table('collections_products', metadata,
Column('collection_id', Integer, ForeignKey('products.id') ),
Column('product_id', Integer, ForeignKey('products.id')
On Nov 10, 2007, at 12:20 PM, david wrote:
Hi Mike -
That did the trick!
But, the strange thing is, if you note the illustration above, for
both situations I was selecting on a key, and there was only a single
row for each. Why would one require the result.close(), and the other
not?
Michael Bayer ha scritto:
On Nov 9, 2007, at 4:23 PM, Manlio Perillo wrote:
Michael Bayer ha scritto:
Sorry, I forgot to add that the mappers A and B must have a
relation()
specified in order for unit of work to determine the order of
operations. this has always been the case in all
OK this is what happens here, the relationship you want to establish is:
product_table (product_table.id=collections.parent_id)---
collections (collections.child_id=product_table.id)
product_table
so above, youve got product_table.id, youve got the collections table
Hi all,
The following is a stripped down use case that I have, where I use
single table inheritance and run a query.first(), however I get a
deprecation warning and I was wondering why ??
Cheers
Dave
% cat db.py
from sqlalchemy import *
from sqlalchemy.orm import *
session =
11 matches
Mail list logo
