Hi guys thanks for the help so Far, from what I understand this is what I
have to do for models..
<code>
from django.db import models
class ModelReadOnly(models.Model):
def save(self, *args, **kwargs):
pass
#raise NotImplemented
class Meta:
managed = False
class AppLog(ModelReadOnly):
log_no = models.AutoField(db_column=u'LOG_NO') # Field name made
lowercase.
module_id = models.CharField(max_length=25, db_column=u'MODULE_ID') #
Field name made lowercase.
user_name = models.CharField(max_length=25, db_column=u'USER_NAME') #
Field name made lowercase.
full_name = models.CharField(max_length=80, db_column=u'FULL_NAME') #
Field name made lowercase.
description = models.CharField(max_length=3500,
db_column=u'DESCRIPTION', blank=True) # Field name made lowercase.
date_time_stamp = models.DateTimeField(db_column=u'DATE_TIME_STAMP') #
Field name made lowercase.
class Meta:
db_table = u'APP_LOG'
</code>
Thanks should take car of the db structure and the save, now I need to look
at the model manager to circumvent the update.. ?
On Thursday, 25 October 2012 08:59:53 UTC+2, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 12:43 PM, Gregg Branquinho
> <gr...@freightman.com<javascript:>
> > wrote:
>
>> Hi Russel,
>>
>> First off thank you for the suggestion, I am going to give it a whirl and
>> see how it works out.. I have a couple of concerns about the pricing
>> database it the
>> * it is on mssql and the data is spread accross 3 database on the same
>> server so the query would have to be cross database.. which also pose's a
>> problem.
>>
>
> Genuine cross-database queries are going to be a problem regardless --
> Django doesn't handle foreign keys that cross database boundaries. However,
> if it's just a matter of having three different data stores, that's not a
> problem at all -- it just means you'll have multiple entries in your
> database configuration.
>
> * the db's have like 300 table each..
>>
>
> There's a "yikes" factor here in terms of the number of tables you'll need
> to configure, but inspected will help you out here, and once that's done,
> you shouldn't have any problems in practice.
>
>
>> Before you answer I wat thinking of accessing the database on the view
>> *yuck* via pyodbc.
>>
>> after your answer I have a couple more questions ?
>>
>> Is is possible to override how a model is loaded from the database with
>> raw sql and then overide the save and update methods to do nothing ? I have
>> look at ovveriding __init__ but all recommendation are against it, but
>> since I am not saving would it make any difference ?
>>
>
> You can certainly override the save() method and make it a no-op; you
> don't need to touch __init__ at all to do this. Just make a subclass of
> django.db.models.Model that defines a no-op save() method, and make sure
> all your "views" extend this base class. Simliarly, you can override the
> model manager to provide a default query set that makes the update a no-op.
> As a third line of defence, you can write a database router that directs
> write queries to a no-op database, so if something does accidentally
> trigger a database write, it won't allow the update to occur.
>
> Yours,
> Russ Magee %-)
>
--
Email Disclaimer <http://www.freightman.com/Legal/EmailDisclaimer> | Quote
Disclaimer <http://www.freightman.com//Legal/QuoteDisclaimer> | All
business is undertaken subject to our General Trading Conditions, a copy of
which is available on request and on our website
www.freightman.com<http://www.freightman.com/Legal/TradingTerms>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django users" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/django-users/-/67rouu4BWUUJ.
To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
django-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en.
