On Apr 13, 2009, at 5:55 AM, Shai Berger wrote:
> I think a stronger case can be made: The reverse OneToOne relation > just should > not throw DoesNotExist, always returning None when there is no > matching > object. This is a realization of the idea that "OneToOne" relations > are > really, in a total majority of cases, "OneToZeroOrOne" relations. I've been down this road before, and have been shot down with comments along the line of "what you really want is a ForeignKey(unique=True, null=True)". The problem is that you can't easily follow the reverse of that (it requires a separate query, which could get very expensive). #7270 attempts to make that case not require an extra query for both 121 fields and FK(unique=True), and to have FK(unique=True) have an accessor which makes it syntactically similar to 121. The current leaning for that ticket the last time I talked with Malcolm is that the 121 portion is very likely to get accepted, the FK(unique=True) portion is less likely. However, if you had the FK part, would that resolve most of your issues, with the exception of the model inheritance instances? Thanks, George --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
