Re: abstract class with Class::DBI

[prev] [thread] [next] [Date index for 2004/10/21]

On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 03:17:18PM -0400, Michael wrote:
> I think there might be some confusion here.

That's status quo for me :).


> The docs mean that you shouldn't have your primary key also be a
> foreign key. Right? meaning something like this is bad:

Ahh, I get it now. I don't usu. setup tables that have a foreign key as
the primary key which partially attributes to my confusion. Thanks for
clearing that up for me.

In the simple example that Tom sent, it is interesting to note that
inflating the primary key with has_a works so long as you do not alter
the stringification of the related table. I suspect that this may break
down in more complex situations and using might_have makes more sense to
me at this point.


William

        -- 
        Knowmad Services Inc.
http://www.knowmad.com