On 8/30/06, zzzeek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Karl Guertin wrote: > > This is probably something I should submit a patch for in ActiveMapper > > itself, but the biggest problem with ActiveMapper is that you can't > > get at the primaryjoin and secondaryjoin attributes to do the more > > involved mapping. As a result, I normally just do assign_mapper > > throughout, as ActiveMapper and non-ActiveMapper models don't work > > well together. AM itself is like 200 lines of code on top of the SA > > core. ;] > > starting to get off topic here, while I can believe that mixing AM and > non-AM models probably have glitches (since nobody has tried it out too > much), there shouldnt be anything deeply broken with mixing the two; an > AM object is basically a regular mapped object (via assign_mapper) with > just a slightly weird way of setting up its Table/Mapper/relationships. > While i dont have the cycles to address it single-handedly, Im sure the > issues could be resolved if we come up with some decent test cases as > well as some consistent and documented ways to get at the Table/Mapper > of an AM object. We really should have a real doc for ActiveMapper.
I may come up with some halfway decent ActiveMapper tests in the process of figuring out the Django-SQLAlchemy mapper; if I do, I'll make sure to send patches to SQLAlchemy. Ditto documentation. -- Robin Munn [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG key 0xD6497014 --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
