Michael Bayer wrote:
>
> On Apr 4, 2008, at 2:43 PM, Rick Morrison wrote:
>
>> Wouldn't this kind of feature be more natural to include in the
>> Query constructor itself, to make Query() somewhat orthogonal with
>> select()?
>>
>> i.e.
>> session.query([MappedObject.id,
>> MappedObject.name]).filter(...).all()
>>
>> instead of
>>
>> session.query(MappedObject).filter(...).values(MappedObject.id,
>> MappedObject.name).all()
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy?hl=en
>> -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
>>
>
> right now, its because something like this:
>
> sess.query(MappedObject.id, SomeOtherObject.foo,
> SomeThirdObject.somethingelse).join('foo')
>
> is ambiguous. The query's notion of "mapper zero" is a significant
> factor in how it works right now. So I like that the Query() has an
> explicit "mapper zero", which when mapper-zero-like functions like
> join(), with_polymorphic(), eagerload(), deferred(), etc. etc. are
> called, theres no guesswork, or rules like "the first column
> determines the 'main' table".
>
> I havent seen anyone propose any other ways around that concept, but
> whatever we come up with I would like to keep things as simple as
> possible...i think the assumption that Query always has a "root" table
> has held up pretty well.
How about keeping it explicit:
query(A.id, Node.name) -> ok
query(A.id, Node.name).join('foo') -> 'nothing to relate to' error
query(A.id, Node.name).mapper_zero(A).join('node') -> hooray
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
