Re: CDBI::Relationship::Glue ?

[prev] [thread] [next] [Date index for 2004/06/23]

--Bn2rw/3z4jIqBvZU
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 08:16:04 +0100, Tony Bowden wrote:

> Who says it's not going to be the interface? It's the best solution I've
> seen yet to the interface nightmare that is many-many relationships....

So multiple foreign key relationships should be

	Lookup->define_link([qw/fk1 fk2/]  =3D> 'Gorch'], fk_of_otheri =3D> 'Other=
');

for a three column table, where class Gorch has a two part primary key?

What other types of many to many messes can there be? I'd rather design
it with the future in mind, if you think it's a good interface.

> That's really just an implementation detail. We can always refactor later
> how the database calls are made without the user needing to know anthing
> more about it (other than noticing how much faster everything becomes).

True, but we can't assure it happens gracefully =3D)
We'll need to really make sure all the problems of describing many to
many relationships can be solved - what are they, everyone? See my above
request.

Also, if it is endorsed as more than just sugar by CDBI, should I expect
it to be core and document it in Class/DBI.pm instead?

Ciao!

--=20
 ()  Yuval Kogman <nothingmuch@xxxxxxxx.xxx> 0xEBD27418  perl hacker &
 /\  kung foo master: /methinks long and hard, and runs away: neeyah!!!


--Bn2rw/3z4jIqBvZU
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

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

iD8DBQFA2TxVVCwRwOvSdBgRAtIKAJ4utaStzgBTKXm2aGBqxGZ6s7V46ACfSNsn
e7JbAPPFHTCZRNhnMuetdqw=
=2oc3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Bn2rw/3z4jIqBvZU--