> we arent writing to anything here, this is strictly a read-only > function. if you want to modify the collection, you create a real > relation() separately. the controversy was over should the > relation () and the generative loader be mixed (which I think they > should not, even though its slightly more verbose...surprise). > > > i want to somehow bundle these (read/write aspects) in one thing, > > e.g. called "specialized_relation", and not having to separately > > think about intermediate objects/queries etc. > > yes i am not comfortable with combining them as Gaetan suggested > since i think it conflates two semantic purposes in one attribute, > one purpose being the management of data in the database, the other > being a view. in particular you really cant have your partial > loaded list actually populate the underlying collection since it > will only be partially populated and ruin the semantics of what it > means to be a "relation".
Think of the "relation" in your sematics like a class XX. The particular subset (for some obj on some side) - my spec_relation - is like an instance of that XX class. Objects in the subset belong to the superset by definition. Adding to the subset actualy adds to the general thing - assuming validation is done - or forced, e.g. if subsetting is by-template). i think such pattern can be invented and wrapped in something real, e.g. a class, subclassing which will contain and able to declare/create relations, and instantiating the subclass will create temporary relation-subsets by some criteria. let me see if i can do it... --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sqlalchemy" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
