Re: abstract class with Class::DBI

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

William McKee wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 03:41:38PM +0100, Tony Bowden wrote:
> 
>>On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 09:00:45AM -0400, William McKee wrote:
>>
>>>  *NOTE* You should not attempt to make your primary key column inflate
>>>  using has_a() as bad things will happen. If you have two tables which
>>>  share a primary key, consider using might_have() instead.
>>>
>>>I was hoping that one of the developers would say something about your
>>>statement. I don't think that setting a has_a relationship on a primary
>>>key is the same as inflating it. I use this setup all the time and have
>>>not seen problems.
>>
>>It is the same. That's what the docs mean. 
> 
> 
> But the docs also say that the purpose of the has_a relationship is to
> link a foreign key to a primary key. You even have an example of this
> use in the Synopsis. If using has_a causes inflation then I'd suggest
> that the warning needs to be reworded so as to be more specific about
> what to avoid.

I think there might be some confusion here. The docs mean that you 
shouldn't have your primary key also be a foreign key. Right? meaning
something like this is bad:

package DB::Foo;
use base 'Class::DBI';
__PACKAGE__->table('foo');
__PACKAGE__->columns(Primary => 'bar');
__PACKAGE__->has_a(bar => 'DB::Bar');

1;

That's what I always thought they meant.

        -- 
        Michael Peters
Developer
Plus Three, LP