On Jan 15, 2008, at 10:49 AM, svilen wrote:
> > hmmm, specify explicitly? > e.g. query(A).eagerload( B.address) > > joined-inh via left-outer-join is enough, no need for polymunion. uh well i suppose....eagerload options dont really affect the "traversal" that way and it would take some non-trivial rearrangement of internals. > IMO > this will be big plus for the ORM - eagerloading polymorphical child > attributes - moving further away from SQL-like-looking stuff. we *like* SQL ! we dont want to become OQL. > i dont know how the current machinery for eagerload works, but imo > knowing your level of lookahead-design, it should not be hard to > apply that machinery over a polymorphic mapper/query? > theres plenty of much higher priority issues than this one in the queue...considering that you can already get the results you want with this one using direct SQL..... --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
