Yeah, that might ultimately be the best way to go if things get too
complicated. I think people might not want to re-run several lines of
code to change some parameters but that could be a thing I make them just
live with.
On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 3:06:57 AM UTC-5, Ladislav Lenart
On 03/03/2016 07:36 AM, Lele Gaifax wrote:
Simon King writes:
In general I think it is not recommended to use "secondary" with a table
that you have also mapped a class to. (eg. see the warning at the bottom of
On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 12:01 PM, Krishnakant wrote:
>
>
> On Thursday 25 February 2016 03:50 PM, Simon King wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 9:43 AM, Krishnakant
> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>> I have a query where there are 2 alias for a single table.
Simon King writes:
> In general I think it is not recommended to use "secondary" with a table
> that you have also mapped a class to. (eg. see the warning at the bottom of
> http://docs.sqlalchemy.org/en/rel_1_0/orm/basic_relationships.html#association-object
> ).
Thank
On Thursday 25 February 2016 03:50 PM, Simon King wrote:
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 9:43 AM, Krishnakant > wrote:
Hello,
I have a query where there are 2 alias for a single table.
This is because the table contains a self
On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 8:27 AM, Lele Gaifax wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have a simple m2m relationship between two entities, with a secondary
> table
> in the middle.
>
> From the left item I need to read both the right items and the middle
> ones, so
> I have two relationships
Hi all,
I have a simple m2m relationship between two entities, with a secondary table
in the middle.
>From the left item I need to read both the right items and the middle ones, so
I have two relationships on the left entity.
When I delete one left item, I get the following exception:
Hello.
I think it would be (much) easier to simply rebuild the query from scratch
before each run. IMHO the time to build the query is not that big a factor to
justify the added source code complexity.
HTH,
Ladislav Lenart
On 3.3.2016 05:47, Brian Cherinka wrote:
>
>
> well you need a