IMHO, this solves my use case nicely. It's slightly longer than what I proposed but doesn't reach my internal "this_is_too_long_to_type" threshold and it's more explicit...
So for me it's a +1 for that solution (along with documenting the joinpoint behavior ;-)). On 6/2/07, Michael Bayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > plus *another* option to think about here, which was actually my > first (suppressed) instinct, but now i just saw that Hibernate "sort > of" does this, is to *keep* the "joinpoint" in and just have the > "join" function reset the "joinpoint" on each invocation. > > so, > > session.query(User).join(['orders', 'items']).filter_by > (item_name='foo').join(['addresses']).filter_by > (email_address='[EMAIL PROTECTED]').list() > > at the moment, this seems intuitive to me. but i dont know if itll > stay that way. i do like that each method has a single type of > argument, as opposed to filter_by(qualifier, **kwargs). -- Gaëtan de Menten http://openhex.org --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
