Re: CDBI::Relationship::Glue ?

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

From: Tony Bowden
Subject: Re: CDBI::Relationship::Glue ?
Date: 20:57 on 23 Jun 2004

On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 11:11:47PM +0300, Yuval Kogman wrote:
> 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.

I'd actually argue that the meta_info bit is important, rather than
cruft. One of the main points behind meta_info is that application
writers can interrogate it for information about what relationships
exist. Yes, there'll still be the info on each of the has_a() and
has_many() relationships, but most applications will care more that
there's actually a many-many in place. Providing that for them is a very
useful thing...

Tony

(message missing)

CDBI::Relationship::Glue ?
Yuval Kogman 20:45 on 21 Jun 2004

Re: CDBI::Relationship::Glue ?
Tony Bowden 20:59 on 22 Jun 2004

Re: CDBI::Relationship::Glue ?
Yuval Kogman 22:59 on 21 Jun 2004

Re: CDBI::Relationship::Glue ?
Yuval Kogman 17:49 on 22 Jun 2004

Re: CDBI::Relationship::Glue ?
Yuval Kogman 19:45 on 22 Jun 2004

Re: CDBI::Relationship::Glue ?
Tony Bowden 20:02 on 23 Jun 2004

Re: CDBI::Relationship::Glue ?
Yuval Kogman 20:11 on 22 Jun 2004

Re: CDBI::Relationship::Glue ?
Tony Bowden 20:57 on 23 Jun 2004

Re: CDBI::Relationship::Glue ?
Yuval Kogman 23:19 on 22 Jun 2004

Re: CDBI::Relationship::Glue ?
Tony Bowden 07:16 on 24 Jun 2004

Re: CDBI::Relationship::Glue ?
Yuval Kogman 08:16 on 23 Jun 2004

RE: CDBI::Relationship::Glue ?
Addison, Mark 14:54 on 23 Jun 2004

Re: CDBI::Relationship::Glue ?
Tony Bowden 15:24 on 23 Jun 2004

RE: CDBI::Relationship::Glue ?
Addison, Mark 15:52 on 23 Jun 2004