Hi Ian On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 11:36:17 +1000, Ian Holsman wrote:
> but personally I just use foreign keys on the middle table, as I > think it makes the code more readable, and allows you to be more > flexible with it. (for example a M2M with a generic flavor) Like the intermediary model described here: http://www.djangoproject.com/documentation/models/m2m_intermediary/ ? Actually I kinda like the idea of having an explicit definition of the m2m link table, but what I also want is the ability to use the standard m2m manager on instances of the related objects. I.e. image.tags.all() gives me all the tags related to this image in a query set, rather than having to go [i.tag for i in image.intermediary_set.all()] or similar. > What I would like to see (and might already be there.. I haven't > looked to closely lately) is a common naming standard for the > relationships > (foreign, one-to-one, or many) so that I can just switch a M2M to a > Foreign key in the model with no effect on the code which uses it. > > (django might do this.. it's been a while since I used M2M) I think it already does this for the reverse m2m relation (I think), e.g. using the models I defined before Tag objects have an 'image_set' manager. I'm not quite sure this is what you're talking about though. > regards > Ian Cheers Neilen -- you know its kind of tragic we live in the new world but we've lost the magic -- Battery 9 (www.battery9.co.za) --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
