On Jul 19, 2006, at 9:36 PM, Daniel Miller wrote: > > Well right, and that's what I ended up doing. But I sort of think > the p.children collection will still try to update the relationship > if it gets modified, which would cause problems in my case. That's > why we might need to implement inverse=True. I'll play with it for > a while and look into implementing it if there's a problem.
there is an "inverse" flag that exists internally, sort of. the other effect of saying "backref" tells SA that these two relations are "the same", and that only one of them should take effect when computing dependencies during a flush operation....one side of the relation gets a flag that its the "backref" side of it. so SA does have the notion of choosing "a side". id have to read the hibernate doc more to understand what their take is on it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Sqlalchemy-users mailing list Sqlalchemy-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sqlalchemy-users
