Hi Mike,
On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 09:07:15 -0400, Michael Bayer <mike...@zzzcomputing.com>
wrote:
> On Jul 27, 2010, at 1:34 AM, Faheem Mitha wrote:
>> My usage is slightly non-standard - a foreign key pointing to a
>> foreign key.
> that never worked, most likely. its very complicated to get the
> types to propagate up a chain like that, and all on a deferred
> execution, in a reasonable way.
Right.
>> Ok. Well, it should be removed from the docs, I guess.
> it has. Its mentioned in one place with a huge caveat. Where are
> you reading this ?
When I started writing the application in question I was using 0.4,
and I was reading Essential Sqlalchemy at the time too. That was
November 2008. So probably either the 0.4 docs or Essential SQLA
mentioned the option of leaving the type blank.
I just changed the app to state the ForeignKey types explicitly. This
kind of inference is handy, especially when one is changing types. but
I suppose the db would catch inconsistencies anyway.
Regards, Faheem.
--
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.
