[sqlalchemy] Re: [Sqlalchemy-users] Typed Relations - Any Easier way to do Association Object?

2006-11-01 Thread Michael Bayer
(moving to google groups) the idea of using an instrumented list subclass is that you *would* use the association object, and just have the list subclass handle the references to the association object for you, i.e.: class MyList(list): def append(self, item): super(MyList,

[sqlalchemy] Re: [Sqlalchemy-users] Typed Relations - Any Easier way to do Association Object?

2006-11-01 Thread Karl Guertin
On 11/1/06, Michael Bayer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (moving to google groups) Eh, sorry cached email address. the idea of using an instrumented list subclass is that you *would* use the association object, and just have the list subclass handle the references to the association object for

[sqlalchemy] Re: [Sqlalchemy-users] Typed Relations - Any Easier way to do Association Object?

2006-11-01 Thread Michael Bayer
OK, i was oversimplifying. if you really want a total bi-directional many-to-many relationship where the association object is essentially invisible, you have to set up proxies in both directions. The attached script illustrates an almost generic way of doing this which, after a few more