> > the joinpoint between A and B is not impicit, there could be many ways > to join from A to B. We had this guessing going on in 0.3's > filter_by() and its been removed. >
Sure, implicit can only work if there is only one possible join path as specified in either A or B's mapper. If there's more than one path, then that w/b an error. But ISTM that the case where is 1AO1 path is the 80-90% case in most schemas. > > > One of the big benefits of Query() + eagerload() and it's friends is > > the abillity to capture and reuse that relational information. Right > > now, it seems clumsier than it ought to be to join two mapped > > instances together. > > what, query(A).join('foos') ? if that's "clumsy", thats a different > issue. Yeah I misspoke a bit -- it's not the join specification itself, it's the fetching of the other mapped object, as the remainder of the paragraph implies when you don't split it up like that. > > > There is a raft of duct tape like "add_column()", and "add_entity". > > The basic functionality is there, but the interface is kind of clunky. > > well, values(A.id, B.id, C, D), it can all go in there eventually. > Right now, from what I've seen from playing with values(), it only takes column specifications, and complains about instances. It would be a LOT more useful with the mix of the two. And from there, it seems only a short step to putting all the fetch specs into the Query() ctor, instead of this .values() thing. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---