On 6/29/06, Kevin Dangoor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 6/29/06, Jonathan LaCour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Kevin Dangoor wrote: > > > > > It seems to me that an implicit integer primary key would be a nice > > > feature for ActiveMapper. If a primary key is defined, of course, that > > > wouldn't be added... but for brand new databases, an int primary key > > > makes good sense and is easy to work with. > > > > This would certainly make ActiveMapper more SQLObject-like, which would > > probably be a good thing since they have the same target audience. I > > would like this very much as long as there is a way to disable it. > > Ahh, that's a good point. There are some cases where people have no primary > key.
Oh yeah: the ORM, logically, doesn't work without a primary key! So, what I originally said still stands. If you define a column as a primary key, you don't add the integer id. If no primary key column exists on the table, one is added for you. Kevin Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ Sqlalchemy-users mailing list Sqlalchemy-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sqlalchemy-users
