Thank you, Jonathan. I’ve used SQLA’s association proxies before, I’ll take a look again.
You bring up a good point, though: Ok, so this isn't a one-to-one relationship, but a many-to-many > relationship. > That’s something I’ve been debating with myself for a while before I posted here: the kind of relationship here. A Child can have only a single Parent, but a Parent has multiple Children. At first is looks like a 1-to-many, but the oddity is the “type” of the Child expressed through a named foreign key constraint: “youngest_child” and “oldest_child” are the examples here. The reason why it’s done this way is because a Child should not have knowledge of its type and how the Parent views the Child. It’s always possible to explicitly enumerate the Child objects on the Parent: children = [youngest_child, oldest_child] but I am curious if there is a better way to do that, one that involves less typing and would pick changes (e.g. adding a “shortest_child” or some such) transparently. Cheers, Jens -- SQLAlchemy - The Python SQL Toolkit and Object Relational Mapper http://www.sqlalchemy.org/ To post example code, please provide an MCVE: Minimal, Complete, and Verifiable Example. See http://stackoverflow.com/help/mcve for a full description. --- 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 sqlalchemy+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sqlalchemy/26803606-3d2e-48f1-b10a-2ac07cd23e94%40googlegroups.com.
