GeoEngine Relational ORM support

gistfile1.py

print self.geo_search(cursor, uid, domain=[('name', 'ilike', 'Lausanne')], geo_domain=[('the_geom', 'geo_greater', Polygon([(3, 0), (4, 1), (4, 0)]))])
print self.geo_search(cursor, uid, domain=[('name', 'ilike', 'Lausanne')], geo_domain=[('the_geom', 'geo_greater', 0)])
print self.geo_search(cursor, uid, domain=[('name', 'ilike', 'Lausanne')], geo_domain=[('the_geom', 'geo_intersect', {'geoengine.demo.automatic.retailing.machine.the_point': []})])
print self.geo_search(cursor, uid, domain=[('name', 'ilike', 'Lausanne')], geo_domain=[('the_geom', 'geo_intersect', {'geoengine.demo.automatic.retailing.machine.the_point': [('name','!=','Vallorbe')]})])

#will generate
"""
SELECT "res_better_zip".id FROM "res_better_zip" WHERE (res_better_zip."name" ilike E'%Lausanne%')  AND  ST_Area(res_better_zip.the_geom) > ST_Area(ST_GeomFromText('POLYGON ((3.0000000000000000 0.0000000000000000, 4.0000000000000000 1.0000000000000000, 4.0000000000000000 0.0000000000000000, 3.0000000000000000 0.0000000000000000))')) ORDER BY priority;

SELECT "res_better_zip".id FROM "res_better_zip" WHERE (res_better_zip."name" ilike E'%Lausanne%')  AND  ST_Area(res_better_zip.the_geom) > 0 ORDER BY priority;

SELECT "res_better_zip".id FROM "res_better_zip", geoengine_demo_automatic_retailing_machine WHERE (res_better_zip."name" ilike E'%Lausanne%')  AND ( ST_Intersects(res_better_zip.the_geom, geoengine_demo_automatic_retailing_machine.the_point)) ORDER BY priority;

SELECT "res_better_zip".id FROM "res_better_zip", geoengine_demo_automatic_retailing_machine WHERE (res_better_zip."name" ilike E'%Lausanne%')  AND ((geoengine_demo_automatic_retailing_machine."name" != E'Vallorbe') AND  ST_Intersects(res_better_zip.the_geom, geoengine_demo_automatic_retailing_machine.the_point)) ORDER BY priority; """

That was the first idea, but we had two problems, first we have to manage the fact that any object in the ERP can be linked only by spatial relation, second expression.py did not allow us to du so … ;)

Sorry I did not get your point at first but I agree with you we can do better and only have one named parameter domain. I'm waiting for your patch ^_^