|
From: Michael W. <li...@mi...> - 2004-08-15 23:22:59
|
On Sun, 2004-08-15 at 01:10 +0100, Andrew Bennetts wrote: > There's already a "default" flag. When left with its default value > (NoDefault), probably SQLObject should just omit it from the INSERT > statement, rather than refuse to even try (or perhaps there should be > a default=OmitOk or something). Currently, there's no way to make use > of a "DEFAULT ..." declaration in a table definition. Yup, exactly. And that breaks the "SQLObject should fit in with existing schema's" goal. |
