You're welcome, and I hope that works for you. I went through the same process a few years ago when picking up SqlAlchemy... the backref facility is so cool that it's easy to forget that it's optional and that most relationship backrefs /could/ be handled as just another relationship on the opposite mapper.
On Nov 12, 7:31 am, Hector Blanco <white.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2010/11/12 Eric Ongerth <ericonge...@gmail.com>: > > > Hi Hector, > > > If I'm not mistaken, everywhere you wrote > > (MyObject.id==MyObject.containerId), > > you meant to write: (Container.id==MyObject.containerId). > > Ups... yeah... great eye. > > > Instead of the backref technique, why not just create the MyObject-- > >>Container relationship a single time in your MyObject class. That > > should be able to coexist with your first code example (with no > > backrefs). > > Oh, right!! That's a great approach... I was so blinded with the > backref thing that I didn't think it could be the other way around! > > I'll do that! > > Thank you Eric! -- 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.
