IMvhO: - table / columns are DB-side terms, relations - sqlalchemy.orm.relation() - are not really. They are more ORM. Foreign keys/Constraints are DB-side, yes. But if annotate relations, then mappers should follow... as they talk of mappers and then keys/joins.
TO me, keeping the OO model in DB-side terms may not be the best thing, as OO-side (mappers/props) may be different beast alltogether - names / meanings / etc. On another hand, if model is wholly based on DB-side stuff, then its not really the relations that has to be annotated, its something lower... but i dont know what. ciao svilen On Sunday 04 May 2008 17:13:15 alex bodnaru wrote: > hi paul, > > the relations should follow, indeed. > > thanks again, > > alex > > Paul Johnston wrote: > > Hi, > > > > > > > > http://www.sqlalchemy.org/docs/04/sqlalchemy_schema.html#docstrin > >gs_sqlalchemy.schema_Table shows info as a parameter in the kwargs > > to a table. > > > > > > So it does, so it's tables and columns. The column info setting > > is in the same page as you sent across, just a bit further up. > > > > What other objects would you like it for? I'm likely to have a > > requirement for it on relations pretty soon. > > > > Paul > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
