On Dec 27, 2011, at 3:33 PM, Kent wrote: > Haha! I sense you're getting irritated, Mike!
oops...that should never show... > There are certain objects that aren't placed in the session because they > aren't in the merge cascade (purposefully). These are transient objects.... > I think that's where I'm hitting this warning. do you need the transient objects to be present in collections/attributes owned by pending/persistent objects ? > It's a toolset to build an orm, right? OK, yes. If you're building on .orm and not just the core, you get a certain behavioral model that you're building on top of. The behavioral model is built around everything being in a Session, with a transaction going on, and if its not in a Session that means it's essentially in transit from one Session to another. That seems like mostly what you're doing here. > Not necessarily an orm out of the box to fit every need. So don't be > offended when I hack at it a bit (trust me, I try to work within the public > API as it was intended to be used, and I'm the only one in the company who it > goes against my grain to hack... the other guys would have trashed it by now! > I'm the one on your side, believe it or not! ;) yes absolutely ! I'm just stressed when challenged to make small modifications without really understanding the bigger need. > > I don't mind if you don't want to change the warnings, just wanted your input > whether it made sense. based on the current model it makes sense. A "partially detached" model that knows not to warn in some cases would require a lot more thought. -- 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.
