#24289: Is usage of many_to_one and one_to_many terms confusing for relation
flags?
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: akaariai | Owner: nobody
Type: Bug | Status: new
Component: Database layer | Version: 1.8alpha1
(models, ORM) |
Severity: Release blocker | Resolution:
Keywords: | Triage Stage: Accepted
Has patch: 0 | Needs documentation: 0
Needs tests: 0 | Patch needs improvement: 0
Easy pickings: 0 | UI/UX: 0
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by loic):
It's worth noting that SQLAlchemy also uses both the "many to one" and
"one to many" terminologies.
It's well documented
http://docs.sqlalchemy.org/en/rel_0_9/orm/basic_relationships.html#basic-
relationship-patterns
The relation accessor on the model with the FK column is a many-to-one,
the relation accessor on the other model is a one-to-many, so our status
quo is effectively reverse to SQLAlchemy.
That both Hibernate and SQLAlchemy use the "many to one" and "one to many"
terminologies comforts me in the idea that these aren't too confusing
provided they are used in a logical way and properly documented. I don't
think we should scrap them on the premise that these will always confuse
people, I see value in being consistent with other major ORMs.
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/24289#comment:18>
Django <https://code.djangoproject.com/>
The Web framework for perfectionists with deadlines.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django updates" 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].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-updates/066.c4ceed363096ab90b33f83616e0cdb8c%40djangoproject.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
