Subject: Re: Changeset 6626 for M:M relationship

On Sep 21, 2011, at 8:25 AM, Vineet Deodhar wrote:

> I was looking at changeset 6626 (trac.dabodev.com) regarding new methods 
> (which require a single bizobj for managing M:M relationship).
> In my DB schema, there are M:M relationships.
> Currently, I need to create different bizobjs for a M:M relationship.
>  
> What I understand from the changeset6626 is that it is a first pass.
> In the next pass, refactoring will take place.

    That next pass has already happened. Revision 6821 finished the work that 
6626 started.

>  My query is ----
> can I use the new methods safely
> ELSE
> continue using the older technique for M:M relationship.

    You can use the methods in the 6821 changes safely.

> It would be great if the new M:M methods are available (of course, I 
> understand that it is subject to the availability of time for you).
> Anyways, ... looking forward eagerly for this new feature in dabo.
    I haven't gotten much feedback on these changes, so either no one's using 
them yet, or they're perfect. :)
    If you run into any problems, please let me know.

-- Ed Leafe
=====================================
That's cool !
I downloaded dabo 0.9.3 version from 
http://dabodev.com/grabit/dabo/dabo-0.9.3-win.zip just now.
While looking for new methods such as "def addMMBizobj(...)", "def 
_getAssociation(self, bizOrDS):", I could not find them in the newly downloaded 
module....  /dabo/biz/dBizobj.py
 
Maybe, this url is pointing towards an older version, or the changes are not 
reflected in this zip file.
Pl. indicate the correct download url which contains the updated version.
 
Regards,
 
Vineet


--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
  text/plain (text body -- kept)
  text/html
---
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/dabo-users
Searchable Archives: http://leafe.com/archives/search/dabo-users
This message: 
http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/[email protected]

Reply via email to