Michael Bayer wrote: > the latest trunk uses deferred mapper compilation and solves this > problem (ticket #194 in trac: http://www.sqlalchemy.org/trac/ticket/ > 194)
Does this changeset make it so that ActiveMapper doesn't have to jump through a bunch of hoops to make sure that tables/mappers are processed in a particular order for relationship dependencies? Right now, this is the most complex aspect of ActiveMapper, and it keeps getting better and better as we go forward, but it also gets more complex. If I could eliminate this code, ActiveMapper would become significantly simpler, and easier to extend. Just curious. Keep up the good work! :) -- Jonathan LaCour http://cleverdevil.org _______________________________________________ Sqlalchemy-users mailing list Sqlalchemy-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sqlalchemy-users
