Hi,
just today I stumbled (again) above an implementation-artifact of
MultipleJoin.
Consider the following situation:
class A(SQLObject):
bs = MultipleJoin("B")
class B(SQLObject):
an_a = ForeignKey("A")
What happens when trying to get
instance_of_A.bs
is that SO does not know that the column-name to be used is
an_a_id
instead of
a_id
and uses the latter. So one has to give the column-name explicit.
I'd like the idea of this becoming a bit more magic, and in case of ambiguity
at least more in the Python-world than in the DB-world.
What do i mean? Well, if there is only one 1:n-relation A<-B, then I think we
could safely assume that to be the one multiply joined, and thus query B for
the column-name to use.
If there a several, ambiguity rises it's ugly head - then I'd suggest the
following notation which abstracts from the id-column-stuff:
class A(...)
bs = MultipleJoin("B", opposite="an_a")
The same considerations might apply to RelatedJoins, but I didn't think that
through.
As always, I'd be implementing and testing things of course.
What do you think?
Diez
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
sqlobject-discuss mailing list
sqlobject-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sqlobject-discuss
