Is there a straightforward way to determine if a RelationshipProperty
has a corresponding reverse (backref)?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
sqlalchemy group.
To post to this group, send email to sqlalchemy@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this
Hello everyone...
I'd like to know what do you think it's better: Whether using backrefs
or manually defining the relationships one by one. Are the backrefs
useful to code less code or do they have other advantages?
I.e.: Let's say I have a User and a UserGroup class with (initially)
the
On Feb 24, 2011, at 1:20 PM, Hector Blanco wrote:
Hello everyone...
I'd like to know what do you think it's better: Whether using backrefs
or manually defining the relationships one by one. Are the backrefs
useful to code less code or do they have other advantages?
I.e.: Let's say I
It was a typo! :-)
They keep the two sides of a relationship in sync on the python side.
I was suspecting using backrefs was better and that it would do some
kind of synchronization like that, yeah... But I was hoping that
someone would say No, it's the same... Because now I won't sleep
soundly
Hi,
Does accessing a backref always have to issue SQL, even if the object to
be loaded already exists in the identity map? For example, if I have a
many-to-one lazy-loaded relationship from Master to Detail with a
backref, the statement master.details[0].master will issue SQL for the
'.master'
hi
just an idea: is it possible to have half-baked backref-declarations?
i want to use the SA's way of inventing backrefs from a name, and just
provide some extra arguments to that invention.
instead now i have a full backref(...) having more or less all of the
relation(...) arguments, but
