On Dec 17, 2011, at 4:40 AM, Chris Withers wrote: > On 16/12/2011 23:48, Michael Bayer wrote: >> I was just looking to express (and top post, its just easier) that right >> now the "sharing the base" patterns arent' nailed down, but that it can >> be whatever. We can make it work whatever way people think should become >> a best practice. Though usually things go better when I come up with the >> best practice myself after getting a really clear view of the use cases. > > More of a SA comment that anything else, but I wish there was one source of > metadata, the MetaData object, rather than having some in the MetaData object > and some in the Base... >
Right but like I said you might have a hierarchy of classes sharing a base, but then several groups of tables that are same-named, spread out, using different metadatas. The current app I work on is like this - one Base but actually four separate MetaData objects. I think the better solution would just be a better documented/unified system of "string lookup" patterns. All these registries are just about looking up strings, so that you don't have to cross-import things. Nothing else. There is always a way to do things without using them at all, just less convenient. Here's the enterprisey way: INameRegistry-> ClassNameRegistry / TableNameRegistry -> CompositeNameRegistry -> Base -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pylons-discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to pylons-discuss@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pylons-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en.
