On 7/30/06, Neilen Marais <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
This should be completely compatible with ordinary use of m2mrelations. It would be problematic if either Tag or Image had anyfields in common with ImageTagInfo, but that would presumably bechecked at model creation type.
One could object that t
Hi Ian
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 11:36:17 +1000, Ian Holsman wrote:
> but personally I just use foreign keys on the middle table, as I
> think it makes the code more readable, and allows you to be more
> flexible with it. (for example a M2M with a generic flavor)
Like the intermediary model describ
Hi Russ
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 20:46:49 +0800, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
> On 7/29/06, Neilen Marais <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I'm just testing the waters to see what people think about an extended
>> ManyToManyField type that allows the addition of extra info to a link
>> withouth havin
On 7/29/06, Neilen Marais <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
I'm just testing the waters to see what people think about an extendedManyToManyField type that allows the addition of extra info to a linkwithouth having to use an intermediary table/model like here:
http://www.djangoproject.com/documentation/m
Hi Neilen.I think this would be a good idea, as I frequently have a M2M type relationship with one or two fields on that field.but personally I just use foreign keys on the middle table, as I think it makes the code more readable, and allows you to be moreflexible with it. (for example a M2M with a
Hi
I'm just testing the waters to see what people think about an extended
ManyToManyField type that allows the addition of extra info to a link
withouth having to use an intermediary table/model like here:
http://www.djangoproject.com/documentation/models/m2m_intermediary/ .
Using the intermedia
