Class::DBI::Set

[prev] [thread] [next] [Date index for 2004/06/25]

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

Howdy...

I'll be needing this for my project.

	my $smiths =3D Class::DBI::Set->new;
	$smiths->contraints( surname =3D> "Smith" );

	my $johns =3D Class::DBI::Set->new;
	$johns->constraints( name =3D> "John" );

	my $john_smiths =3D $john & $smith;
	$john_smiths->retrieve_all;

Just your plain old, simple sets with CDBI. It should be a nice project.
But now the catch.

I want to store a set in a database. As for the schema - i'm not
worried. I'll cross that bridge when I get there. But how silly is it to
start wrapping CDBI class methods so that that when it's a class method
it SUPER::method's, and when it's an object method it does the set
specific operations? Is it better to generate a class per set? Would a
interface with other method names be better or worse? (less conflicts is
also less consistent). Is there any way to get this right at all? Has
anybody tried this before?

See also http://www.thelackthereof.org/wiki.pl/SetDB

--=20
 ()  Yuval Kogman <nothingmuch@xxxxxxxx.xxx> 0xEBD27418  perl hacker &
 /\  kung foo master: /me spreads pj3Ar using 0wnage: neeyah!!!!!!!!!!!


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

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

iD8DBQFA3GoLVCwRwOvSdBgRAk8dAJ41sjGz4wYJisDFOjE1kbGzCZs0bwCgwU7E
SjKBK5m8t+WopK7V7gxrJBU=
=x7TW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--qDbXVdCdHGoSgWSk--