Did anything ever happen with this? I'm in the same position. I understand the reasoning behind the restriction but I think it would be useful to create custom intermediary tables.
- Brad On Aug 17, 3:04 am, squeakypants <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Really? Still though, with the intermediary I don't see why it can't > be symmetrical. Unless I don't understand the idea of an > "intermediary", it's not actually adding extra fields to that M2M > table, but rather creating another table that references each > connection's id. If that's the case, wouldn't it be possible to have a > single intermediary entry reference both A->B and B->A? > > Like I said, the intermediary is just a PositiveIntegerField. If it > does simply add extra fields and I'm just misunderstanding it, is > there a "connection id" that I can reference myself? If it's as I > explained above, I'm surprised this functionality isn't built in (and > maybe I should post a ticket about it). I just want to do this > correctly the first time to avoid any major model change in my site. > > Thanks, > squeakypants > > On Aug 16, 11:29 am, Malcolm Tredinnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > Since that's exactly how symmetrical works, it looks like you're > > engaging in premature optimisation by ruling that out in the second > > case. > > > Regards, > > Malcolm --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
