On 6/11/07, Michael Bayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > secondly: a non-primary mapper is just an awkward way of defining an > ORM query. Since we support generative queries now, you can just > make a Query object with the criterion youre looking for and just > hold onto it...youre just adding a single WHERE criterion, so > my_secondary_query = query(MyClass).filter(table.c.tipo=='p'). much > easier. ideally Query should be replacing 90% of all non_primary > mapper use cases.
So in your mind, is my non-primary example over at http://spyced.blogspot.com/2007/01/why-sqlalchemy-impresses-me.html part of the other 10%? I don't think holding onto a query is as elegant as being able to say "user.max_order" in a eager or lazy context and having that Just Work, but maybe I am missing something. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
