sqlobject-discuss

[SQLObject] *id* column mandatory? BLOBS ?

[Jim V. <Jim...@no...>]

Hello,

From the documentation, it appears that SQLObject is for use with tables
that have an *id* column.  May SQLObject be used with tables that do not
have an *id* column?

Also, a previous post asked about support for BLOBS.  Presently, there
appears to be no such support.  Are there plans to support BLOBS?

Thanks,

-- jv

Re: [SQLObject] *id* column mandatory? BLOBS ?

[Jim V. <Jim...@no...>]

Thanks for the information.

Sorry that my question was imprecisely worded.

May SQLObject be used with a table that has no primary key column (e.g., with a
table whose key is a combination of columns -- some perhaps being non-integer)?

-- jv

Dave Poirier wrote:

> On Wed, 2003-08-13 at 13:36, Jim Vickroy wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > >From the documentation, it appears that SQLObject is for use with tables
> > that have an *id* column.  May SQLObject be used with tables that do not
> > have an *id* column?
> >
> > Also, a previous post asked about support for BLOBS.  Presently, there
> > appears to be no such support.  Are there plans to support BLOBS?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > -- jv
>
> Yes, it is possible to name another column as being the primary key.
>
> alternateID:
>
>     This boolean (default False) indicates if the column can be used as
> an ID for the field (for instance, a username), though it is not a
> primary key. If so a class method will be added, like byUsername which
> will return that object. Use alternateMethodName if you don't like the
> by* name (e.g. alternateMethodName="username").
>
>     The column should be declared UNIQUE in your table schema.
>
> see http://sqlobject.org/docs/SQLObject.html for further details.
>
> -Dave

Re: [SQLObject] *id* column mandatory? BLOBS ?

[Frank B. <fb...@fo...>]

Hallo,
Jim Vickroy hat gesagt: // Jim Vickroy wrote:

> May SQLObject be used with a table that has no primary key column (e.g., with a
> table whose key is a combination of columns -- some perhaps being non-integer)?

Currently no. An integer ID column is mandatory. From the docs: "You
can override the name, but some integer primary key must exist."

ciao
-- 
 Frank Barknecht                               _ ______footils.org__

Re: [SQLObject] *id* column mandatory? BLOBS ?

[Jim V. <Jim...@no...>]

Thanks for the confirmation.

I asked this question, because we have some existing tables that do not have an
integer primary key, but I seem to be able to use SQLObject to read from them if I
tell SQLObject that some non-integer column is the *id* column (via _idName).

From your response, however, this is probably not safe.

Frank Barknecht wrote:

> Hallo,
> Jim Vickroy hat gesagt: // Jim Vickroy wrote:
>
> > May SQLObject be used with a table that has no primary key column (e.g., with a
> > table whose key is a combination of columns -- some perhaps being non-integer)?
>
> Currently no. An integer ID column is mandatory. From the docs: "You
> can override the name, but some integer primary key must exist."
>
> ciao
> --
>  Frank Barknecht                               _ ______footils.org__
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including
> Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now.
> Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET.
> http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100003ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01/01
> _______________________________________________
> sqlobject-discuss mailing list
> sql...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sqlobject-discuss

Re: [SQLObject] *id* column mandatory? BLOBS ?

[Luke O. <lu...@me...>]

The current version of SQLObject only supports integer primary key columns (can
use a different name than 'id' using the _idName class attribute). I believe
there is a patch to allow non-integer single key columns. There has been a lot
of discussion of multi-column primary keys, but I'm not aware of any
implementation.

There has been no effort towards having tables with *no* primary key
constraint, but I don't think that's what you're really wanting.

I haven't looked at what it will take to support BLOBs, my guess is a release
implementation won't exist until the marshall/unmarshall column code exists
(same thing that full BooleanCol support is waiting for).

Sorry I can't be more helpful,

- Luke

Quoting Jim Vickroy <Jim...@no...>:

> Thanks for the information.
>
> Sorry that my question was imprecisely worded.
>
> May SQLObject be used with a table that has no primary key column (e.g.,
> with a
> table whose key is a combination of columns -- some perhaps being
> non-integer)?
>
> -- jv
>
> Dave Poirier wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2003-08-13 at 13:36, Jim Vickroy wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > >From the documentation, it appears that SQLObject is for use with
> tables
> > > that have an *id* column.  May SQLObject be used with tables that do not
> > > have an *id* column?
> > >
> > > Also, a previous post asked about support for BLOBS.  Presently, there
> > > appears to be no such support.  Are there plans to support BLOBS?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > -- jv
> >
> > Yes, it is possible to name another column as being the primary key.
> >
> > alternateID:
> >
> >     This boolean (default False) indicates if the column can be used as
> > an ID for the field (for instance, a username), though it is not a
> > primary key. If so a class method will be added, like byUsername which
> > will return that object. Use alternateMethodName if you don't like the
> > by* name (e.g. alternateMethodName="username").
> >
> >     The column should be declared UNIQUE in your table schema.
> >
> > see http://sqlobject.org/docs/SQLObject.html for further details.
> >
> > -Dave
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including
> Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now.
> Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET.
> http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100003ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01/01
> _______________________________________________
> sqlobject-discuss mailing list
> sql...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sqlobject-discuss
>


--
The Pursuit of Counterfactual Histories

Re: [SQLObject] *id* column mandatory? BLOBS ?

[Ian B. <ia...@co...>]

On Wednesday, August 13, 2003, at 04:35 PM, Luke Opperman wrote:
> I haven't looked at what it will take to support BLOBs, my guess is a 
> release
> implementation won't exist until the marshall/unmarshall column code 
> exists
> (same thing that full BooleanCol support is waiting for).

The elegant implementation will have to wait, but you should still be 
able to use them now.  I posted a message with the subject "Binary 
Data" today, which kind of outlines it.

   Ian