Re: CDBI::Relationship::Glue ?

[prev] [thread] [next] [Date index for 2004/06/22]

--SUk9VBj82R8Xhb8H
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 21:02:08 +0100, Tony Bowden wrote:

> I'd really prefer that Class::DBI::Relationship::* was reserved for
> classes that are actually Relationships, in that they inherit from
> Class::DBI::Relationship, or, at very least, get installed via the
> add_relationship_type() method.

I agree. And the other solution, besides renaming is to make it a "Real"
relationship, by inheriting, being an option, polluting meta_info. But
IMHO such completeness is actually redundancy and cruft in this case.

Class::DBI::Link? I think that's aweful. It implies too much
functionality, and no longer relates to relationships.

Is there a general namespace for CDBI syntatic sugar? Maybe we should
create a sort of shortcuts namespace under Class::DBI::Relationship?

> Otherwise it looks good. (Althought it could probably do with a concrete
> example in the docs: maybe the Film->role->actor one?)

I didn't even spell check the docs, so expect a bit more input on that
part. =3D)

--=20
 ()  Yuval Kogman <nothingmuch@xxxxxxxx.xxx> 0xEBD27418  perl hacker &
 /\  kung foo master: /me tips over a cow: neeyah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


--SUk9VBj82R8Xhb8H
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFA2JKDVCwRwOvSdBgRAiH7AJ9Dbs7Xp2g3pkgOX3d7AEbCL7Qn0gCfdolI
H57YnB/BEqS9NjR7p5586NA=
=UO24
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--SUk9VBj82R8Xhb8H--