On 19 Nov, 17:22, "Michael Bayer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Out of curiosity, is there a solution that wouldn't require creating > > new instances of the objects? > > (Some magic incantation like the "del instance_state(entity).key" you > > suggested me some time ago, I guess..?) > > not really since you'd have to manually recreate the history attributes > for the "children" list in order for SQLA to see those items as newly > added, thus resulting in the rules that establish the association to be > invoked.
I see.. But - sorry if I insist - are you implying that it would be too difficult to do? I know it'd be a kind of ugly hack, but since I spent almost the whole day looking for it, now I'm wondering if I was looking for something that doesn't exist at all X-) > since the path of "create and associate objects like normal > python objects" is the path of usage the ORM was designed for, that's the > one that will work without danger of being impacted by implementation > details. Yes of course.. Thanks again! --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
