Woops, relational, yes.
> The problem is that you have thrown away the possibility of this being
> even vaguely similar to normal objects. Its incredibly confusing.
I don't see that, but then again I came up with the idea so it's
obviously not confusing to me. In my view, it seems that the obje
Brant Harris wrote:
> On 12/7/05, Robert Wittams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>That is just horrible. Sorry. The point is not to treat python as some
>>arbitrary data format that might have some relationship to your objects
>>: the point is to define classes that act as normally as possible and
On 12/7/05, Robert Wittams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That is just horrible. Sorry. The point is not to treat python as some
> arbitrary data format that might have some relationship to your objects
> : the point is to define classes that act as normally as possible and
> are stored in a databas
Brant Harris wrote:
> Here's yet another idea, that creates seperate classes for the Model
> (table) and the Entity (row). I think the problem with how we've been
> thinking about it is that the two have been the same, and in reality
> they are not.
>
> http://django.pastebin.com/452621
>
That
Here's yet another idea, that creates seperate classes for the Model
(table) and the Entity (row). I think the problem with how we've been
thinking about it is that the two have been the same, and in reality
they are not.
http://django.pastebin.com/452621
