Makes sense. The name is not the issue. The issue is what should the
mssql2005 types be:
types = {
'boolean': 'BIT',
'string': 'VARCHAR(%(length)s)',
'text': 'TEXT',
'password': 'VARCHAR(%(length)s)',
'blob': 'IMAGE',
'upload': 'VARCHAR(%(length)s)',
'integer': 'INT',
'double': 'FLOAT',
'decimal': 'NUMERIC(%(precision)s,%(scale)s)',
'date': 'DATETIME',
'time': 'CHAR(8)',
'datetime': 'DATETIME',
'id': 'INT IDENTITY PRIMARY KEY',
'reference': 'INT, CONSTRAINT %(constraint_name)s FOREIGN KEY
(%(field_name)s) REFERENCES %(foreign_key)s ON DELETE %
(on_delete_action)s',
'reference FK': ', CONSTRAINT FK_%(constraint_name)s FOREIGN KEY (%
(field_name)s) REFERENCES %(foreign_key)s ON DELETE %
(on_delete_action)s',
'reference TFK': ' CONSTRAINT FK_%(foreign_table)s_PK FOREIGN
KEY (%(field_name)s) REFERENCES %(foreign_table)s (%(foreign_key)s) ON
DELETE %(on_delete_action)s',
'list:integer': 'TEXT',
'list:string': 'TEXT',
'list:reference': 'TEXT',
}
or
types = {
'boolean': 'CHAR(1)',
'string': 'NVARCHAR(%(length)s)',
'text': 'NTEXT',
'password': 'NVARCHAR(%(length)s)',
'blob': 'IMAGE',
'upload': 'NVARCHAR(%(length)s)',
'integer': 'INT',
'double': 'FLOAT',
'decimal': 'NUMERIC(%(precision)s,%(scale)s)',
'date': 'DATETIME',
'time': 'CHAR(8)',
'datetime': 'DATETIME',
'id': 'INT IDENTITY PRIMARY KEY',
'reference': 'INT, CONSTRAINT %(constraint_name)s FOREIGN KEY
(%(field_name)s) REFERENCES %(foreign_key)s ON DELETE %
(on_delete_action)s',
'reference FK': ', CONSTRAINT FK_%(constraint_name)s FOREIGN KEY (%
(field_name)s) REFERENCES %(foreign_key)s ON DELETE %
(on_delete_action)s',
'reference TFK': ' CONSTRAINT FK_%(foreign_table)s_PK FOREIGN
KEY (%(field_name)s) REFERENCES %(foreign_table)s (%(foreign_key)s) ON
DELETE %(on_delete_action)s',
'list:integer': 'NTEXT',
'list:string': 'NTEXT',
'list:reference': 'NTEXT',
}
and should the string representation in SQL be 'value' or N'value' ?
On Mar 2, 11:38 am, Ross Peoples <[email protected]> wrote:
> Actually thinking about this a bit more, mssql should be used for MSSQL 2000,
> and mssql2005 instead of mssql2, and mssql3. The mssql will be compatible
> with 2000, 2005, and 2008, while mssql2005 will be compatible with 2005,
> 2008, and up. What do you think about that?
>
> On Mar 2, 2011, at 10:52 AM, Massimo Di Pierro wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Let's create a mssql3 that does it by the book (or do you think MS
> > will keep changing the API?)
>
> > On Mar 2, 9:11 am, Ross Peoples <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> The only I problem I see is that MSSQL 2000 will not understand
> >> varchar(max). For reference, there is a StackOverflow question that relates
> >> to
> >> this:http://stackoverflow.com/questions/737755/varcharmax-ms-sql-server-20...
