Re: [SQLObject] keyless tables

[Nick <ni...@dd...>]

On Wed, 2003-04-30 at 15:25, Luke Opperman wrote:
> Is there a reason you can't add an artificial surrogate key?

Because it's sloppy :)  I prefer to fix the tool to fit the practice
rather than change a perfectly good practice to fit the tool.  In my
case I've got a permissions table that maps groups and files to
permissions.  It would be very messy to create intermediate tables just
so SQLObject can do RelatedJoins.

On Wed, 2003-04-30 at 15:46, Ian Bicking wrote:
> I would subclass RelatedJoin, changing the performJoin method.  In
> general I think any table that doesn't have a key should be represented
> with a join, and rows in that table won't be turned into full objects. 
> That means they won't be mutable, but it shouldn't be a problem to just
> add and delete rows instead of changing them.

Yes, that's pretty much how I did it with my old framework.  However,
this can create a *lot* of write queries if you're changing a bunch of
different columns.  Which goes back to the whole transaction discussion.

Nick