On Mon, 2010-04-26 at 11:08 -0700, jason kirtland wrote:
> > 1. I'm not sure why it wasn't that way already, and I'd want to hear from
> > Jason Kirtland, its author, on if we are missing something or otherwise
> > whats up. I have a vague notion that there was a reason for this, or
> > maybe not.
>
> It's not something that can be easily solved in the general case with
> the current API. The mapped collections use a 'keyfunc' to figure out
> the dictionary key for loaded instances, for example
> 'operator.attrgetter("name")' for attribute_mapped_collection("name").
> Mechanically reversing that logic in a setting operation sounds
> pretty hard to me, but perhaps if we allowed an 'assignfunc' function
> to be supplied that would do the trick. Internally, the collection
I agree. The idea of an assignfunc crossed my mind as well.
Greetings, Torsten
--
DYNAmore Gesellschaft fuer Ingenieurdienstleistungen mbH
Torsten Landschoff
Office Dresden
Tel: +49-(0)351-4519587
Fax: +49-(0)351-4519561
mailto:torsten.landsch...@dynamore.de
http://www.dynamore.de
Registration court: Mannheim, HRB: 109659, based in Karlsruhe,
Managing director: Prof. Dr. K. Schweizerhof, Dipl.-Math. U. Franz
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sqlalchemy" group.
To post to this group, send email to sqlalch...@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.
