Hi Amir, On Jun 15, 2013, at 9:11 AM, Amir Rachum <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm not sure if this feature was discussed before (I've seen some mentions of > it when searching this group, but nothing definitive). > I have written a blog post regarding the reasons (and the suggested syntax) > to use this relationship, and would love some feedback > > http://blog.amir.rachum.com/post/53019452363/a-case-for-a-onetomany-relationship-in-django
The strongest reason not to do this is that it breaks the correspondence between model fields and database columns. If you added a new OneToMany field on Band pointing to Musician, suddenly the (unmodified) Musician model's db table would require a schema migration, while the Band table would remain unchanged. (Yes, ManyToManyField already sort of breaks this correspondence, but only in that it causes a new table to be created in the same app where you added the field. It never requires a schema migration for an untouched model class, possibly in a different app, which is much worse.) I think this downside alone is enough to kill the proposal for Django core, especially considering the rationale in favor isn't that strong; it's just a new way to spell the exact equivalent of a ForeignKey. That said, I'm pretty sure you could code this up outside of core, if you'd like to experiment with it. Carl -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
