Lawrence, In my religion, your examples of these exceptional cases are caused by improper RDB relational integrity. ;) Jon
On Oct 30, 2:39 pm, Lawrence Pit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > That was my decision. It's a religious thing I don't expect everyone > > to agree with. I'm firmly in the "exceptions should not be used for > > flow-control" camp. ;-) > > > The exception being that a get for a specific id should always raise > > because it's an exceptional situation not to find the object then. > > Imho a get for a specific id should also not raise an exception. Just a > nil please. > > Two areas where not finding a result for a specific id is not that > exceptional: > > - even though you have the reference key value, a paranoid bit might > prevent you from seeing the actual record > > - due to lazy loading strategies internally to dm, dm might have a > reference to a record that existed at the time a collection of ids was > loaded for an association, but as soon as dm iterates over the > collection later on, one of the referenced records may have been deleted > by another user or process. Instead of failing for the whole iteration > process I'd continue and return a collection where one of its members is > nil. > > Lawrence --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DataMapper" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/datamapper?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
