Thanks Dan. I will continue to trying to improve my understanding of this thing and will try to help if I can.
Mark. On Nov 23, 10:12 pm, "Dan Kubb (dkubb)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Mark, > > > Thanks for the heads-up Dan. Do you have any rough time frame in mind > > for the rewrite? > > We're looking at another 1-2 months at least before the code that's in > dkubb/dm-core will be merged into the mainline. > > If you or anyone else is interested in speeding this up, they can help > with a number of things: > > - Fork dkubb/dm-core, and update the docs for the public classes and > send me a pull request. > - Review the tickets inhttp://is.gd/8KhG(starting with the oldest > first) and see if they are still applicable to dkubb/dm-core, and > dkubb/extlib both of which have alot of improvements and fixes. > Either close the tickets (if you have permission) or add a comment > that says it's fixed now and I'll close them myself. If there's no > specs or stand-alone script showing the problem try adding one. > - Try using dkubb/dm-core and dkubb/extlib with your own apps. If > you've got a nice suite of specs please run them and report any issues > you come across. > > > > In this case it's just a convention that shows the in-between join > > > model is an anonymous Resource. You can also use :through > > > => :association_name to specify a specific association to traverse. > > > Ok, I think I understand - I was forgetting you could declare :through > > => Resource, and assumed that the other case, :through > > => :association_name would use ManyToMany as well. But I see now that > > it uses OneToMany. > > While I think this was the case before, I've been thinking that using > has() and :through means you're using a many to many relationship. > I'm not sure the best thing is for OneToMany::Proxy to handle those > since it makes the code unnecessarily complex. I'd probably rather > have ManyToMany::Proxy handle :through whether it's a :through => > Resource, or :through => :other_association. > > Many to Many associations are going to be rewritten from the ground up > (they only pass about 50% of the specs we have written for them) so > this and general organization of the associations code will be handled > at the same time. > > Dan > (dkubb) --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
