I've got a scenario here that seems as if it would be simple to solve,
but it baffling me so far. Pointers in the right direction would be
appreciated.
I have a table of Foo objects, and FooCollection objects. In a classic
many-to-many, a collection may contain a number of Foos, and any
prefer to steer
clear of that. Are there any other possible solutions?
p
On 27 Jun 2008, at 15:57, Michael Bayer wrote:
On Jun 27, 2008, at 10:12 AM, Paul-Michael Agapow wrote:
But, I have a situation where I don't want FooCollection to actually
contain the actual Foos, just a list
number of child rows is being stored and the relations
are correct. It therefore looks like there's a problem in the session
for merged objects.
Any pointers?
--
Dr Paul-Michael Agapow: VieDigitale / Inst. for Animal Health
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED
?
--
Dr Paul-Michael Agapow: VieDigitale / Inst. for Animal Health
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
sqlalchemy group.
To post to this group, send email
is
established? Or is it necessary to do all work either within or
without of the context of a session?
Thanks
--
Dr Paul-Michael Agapow: VieDigitale / Inst. for Animal Health
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message
is about turning a project that was thought for
db/using
dbcook into non-db simple-file-based persistency. The change was
relatively
small, like 5-10 lines per class - as long as there are
Collections etc
similar notions so Obj side of ORM looks same.
--
Dr Paul-Michael Agapow
Paul-Michael Agapow: VieDigitale / Inst. for Animal Health
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
sqlalchemy group.
To post to this group, send email to sqlalchemy
