On Jun 6, 2013, at 3:21 PM, Michael Bayer <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Not only that, but we are now placing ORM-specific configuration into our
> Table metadata. What's wrong with doing it in relationship()? Clearly,
> the way primaryjoin works, in that it's an expression, is cumbersome. But
> that seems like a much easier problem to solve, just by adding some extra
> sugar to relationship itself? Like relationship("MyTable",
> primaryjoin=[("a", "b"), ("c", "d")]) ? How is that more "fiddling" than
> the other approach?
maybe we could even go to that Place We've Never Gone (since I realized [("a",
"b"), ("c", "d")] doesn't say anything about 'foreign'), and spell out the
direction:
relationship("Group", manytoone("favorite_group_id", "group_id"))
manytoone() would be some declarative sugar that expands into:
foreign(thing.c.favorite_group_id) == remote(group.c.group_id)
at least here, we can make the case that, "these little annotations
onetomany(), manytoone(), manytomany() are shortcuts to spelling out these
particular joins".
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sqlalchemy" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
