Re: Deleting an object on the other side of a has_a

[prev] [thread] [next] [Date index for 2004/09/02]

From: Peter Pimley
Subject: Re: Deleting an object on the other side of a has_a
Date: 08:50 on 02 Sep 2004
William McKee wrote:

> In particular, I'm wondering if Peter should be using a might_have 
> relationship instead of a has_a. Thoughts?



Well, from what I could see from the documentation, might_have seems to 
be for adding extra fields to an existing object, rather than acting 
like a pointer (spot the C++ coder ;) to another object.

So long as you can set a has_a field to undef, then has_a is definately 
what I want.

I'll try calling remove_from_object_index on my 'bad' object, or 
possibly call clear_object_index.  This is all happening from within 
Mason / mod_perl, so it's possible that stale objects are hanging around 
between browser hits.  I'm nowhere near performance-bound, so any 
overheads will not be a problem.

I'll let you know how I get on!

Peter P

(message missing)

Deleting an object on the other side of a has_a
Peter Pimley 10:02 on 01 Sep 2004

Re: Deleting an object on the other side of a has_a
Perrin Harkins 16:09 on 01 Sep 2004

Re: Deleting an object on the other side of a has_a
Perrin Harkins 15:32 on 01 Sep 2004

Re: Deleting an object on the other side of a has_a
Perrin Harkins 16:33 on 01 Sep 2004

Re: Deleting an object on the other side of a has_a
Perrin Harkins 17:03 on 01 Sep 2004

Re: Deleting an object on the other side of a has_a
Perrin Harkins 16:42 on 01 Sep 2004

Re: Deleting an object on the other side of a has_a
Peter Pimley 08:50 on 02 Sep 2004

Re: Deleting an object on the other side of a has_a
Perrin Harkins 15:06 on 02 Sep 2004

Generated at 11:34 on 01 Dec 2004 by mariachi v0.52