On May 31, 2013, at 1:06 PM, developer.l...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi. I have the following structuring of classes with a base class without a
> table.
>
> User(base):
> address = relationship('Address', backref=backref("user", uselist=False))
> address_id = Column(Integer)
>
> Address(base):
> __tablename__ = 'address'
> info = Column(String(255))
> Info2 = Column(String(255))
>
> Employee(User):
> __tablename__ = 'employee'
> __mapper_args__ = {'concrete':True}
>
> Manager(User):
> __tablename__ = 'manager'
> __mapper_args__ = {'concrete':True}
>
> How is user going to be able to maintain the relationship with address
> without a table, especially because the relationships are statically defined
> using the class/table names? And what would be the best possible solution in
> this case?
its an awkward scenario that I'd try to avoid, but there's an illustration of
how to do this here:
http://docs.sqlalchemy.org/en/rel_0_8/orm/inheritance.html#relationships-with-concrete-inheritance
- note the relationship() is created explicitly on each child class. The
example includes a base table but that is optional.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sqlalchemy" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to sqlalchemy+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sqlalchemy@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
