Hi Michael, Sorry for not following up on your reply. I only came back to this list today. :)
On Thu, 2010-11-18 at 11:34 -0500, Michael Bayer wrote: > > Okay, I updated my example code and it actually works now. However, it > > feels like a lot of additional complexity just for adding order. > > Hm, I just looked at the script and compared it to your previous two pages of > Mapper/Session extensions, seems a lot simpler to me ! :-) Sure. But compared to using orderinglist (only available w/o secondary table) it looks quite a bit more complicated. > The relationship + secondary approach does support "ordering" by an extra > column in the association table, it just doesn't support direct mutation of > that value. > > The rationale for the association object pattern is that it is a consistent > way of establishing full control over the "secondary" table, using the exact > same paradigms as that which grant control over the rows of any other table. > If we did it via flags and switches to relationship(), the API and internal > complexity would increase significantly as would the potential for bugs, not > to mention ambiguity in preferred methodology. On the downside it weights in with an extra Python object with full ORM instrumentation for each entry in an ordered list. 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.
