On Oct 8, 2009, at 4:02 PM, Christoph Zwerschke wrote:
> So this behavior is in fact intended by SQLAlchemy. As Mike explained, > this is because propagating events further than the 2 objects directly > involved would become too complex, possibly leading to recursion and > performance issues. the recursion/perfomance issues I consider implementational humps to get over, but its not like making the event system more comprehensive would be impossible. I think the bigger problem is just whatever surprises and undesierably complexity arise from this new behavior across the wide range of existing applications, versus how much should an application really be relying upon the events synchronzing a large field of references instead of refreshing from the database. It might be that theres not really any bad surprises and the use case is more significant than previously thought. In my own work though I've never had a need to rely upon large chains of references aligning themselves along add/removes. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 sqlalchemy+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
