Re: OneToManyField?

2009-07-22 Thread Russell Keith-Magee
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 4:05 PM, dan wrote: > >> >> If a model A has a foreign key on model B, then the table for A >> requires a field to track the relation. However, if model B has a >> "many to one" on A table A requires a field. > > sorry, can you clarify that for

Re: OneToManyField?

2009-07-22 Thread Waylan Limberg
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 4:05 AM, dan wrote: > [snip] > > I think what the original question is asking is, can the definition of > Parent have a "one-to-many" which points to Child?  At the database > level there would be no difference: Child would still have the foreign >

Re: OneToManyField?

2009-07-22 Thread dan
> > If a model A has a foreign key on model B, then the table for A > requires a field to track the relation. However, if model B has a > "many to one" on A table A requires a field. > sorry, can you clarify that for me? - specifically: "model A has a foreign key on model B" - which

Re: OneToManyField?

2009-07-21 Thread Russell Keith-Magee
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 10:12 PM, Jonas Obrist wrote: > > In the documentation I see that there are Many-To-One Fields, > Many-To-Many Fields and One-To-One Fields. What about a One-To-Many > Field? You might now say that this is completely pointless since a > Many-To-One

OneToManyField?

2009-07-21 Thread Jonas Obrist
In the documentation I see that there are Many-To-One Fields, Many-To-Many Fields and One-To-One Fields. What about a One-To-Many Field? You might now say that this is completely pointless since a Many-To-One Field reversed is basically what I want. But I'd say that in some cases it makes