we were talking conceptually, of course :)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
