Thanks for that versioning overview. Sorry for changing the topic (Should I make a separate post?), but is there a way to make the joins more automatic?
I'd like to just specify some filter against table A and another against table B and have the system join them, even if the join needs to go through C or D. Of course the results would be undefined if there was more than one path between A and B, but this is not the case in my database and I'm sure a good subset of most databases. Will I need to roll this myself? Would people appreciate it if I added this functionality to the mapper class? If so, what code would you suggest editing? I just need some representation of the database as a graph. Thanks, Buck On Jun 25, 1:44 am, Kyle Schaffrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 00:23:41 -0700 (PDT) > > bukzor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Thanks! That works, but is the line I quoted just wrong or outdated or > > what? > > This is what I'm talking about, under "def join()" > >http://www.sqlalchemy.org/docs/04/sqlalchemy_orm_query.html#docstring... > > Fascinating. You're right, although I personally never knew it was > supposed to allow that syntax; I've never used it. > > That exception is coming from the mapper code, which I'm not intimately > familiar with, but the answer to your question would probably lie in > the particulars of your mapper setup. > > In any case, in my experience the string form will always work, all > other things being correct. > > > By the way, is 0.4 the recommended version to use for a new project? > > I'm not a core dev, but it seems like 0.5 final release is beginning to > shape up, so if you're just starting your project I'd imagine the > general consensus would be to go with 0.5, unless you need Python 2.3 > support, which is slated to be dropped. Judging by the traffic on the > list of late, 0.4 (while it's quite usable and still being maintained) > has a couple fairly obscure "won't fix" type issues, and if you run into > any of them you'll probably be advised to upgrade to 0.5 anyway :) > > As well, 0.5's a good bit faster, several non-intuitive "legacy" > behaviors have been removed, and many polymorphism improvements. A > number of namespace and method names are changed, which might make > migrating after the fact nontrivial. [1] lists most of the big > differences in 0.5. For what it's worth, the beta seems quite stable to > me. > > -Kyle > > [1]http://sqlalchemy.org/trac/wiki/05Migration --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
