Michael, > > I am of the opinion that these complex multi-repo problems should > > not be attempted in v1.0. Do we really have that strong a need for > > it? > > The whole idea originally was to rewrite poor DM spec suite first, and > then fix bugs having something to protect your back as you go. > I think this is extremely important in 1.0, and 1.0 should not happen > until the effort is finished.
I know you already posted that you misread Jon's post, but I wanted to address this just so everyone's clear. DM is supposed to support cross-repo associations right now. There is code that attempts to do it, poorly, and makes all sorts of assumptions that turn out not to be true when you begin to break it down. The association behavior has already been specced, and work has begun to make dkubb/dm-core pass those specs. There's still some work to be done, but the results have been really good and I encourage people to compare them with sam/dm-core. However, Many to Many associations were a sticking point. The code passed maybe half of the specs, and the choice was to either try to hack the Relationship, RelationshipChain and ManyToMany classes to work or rewrite the internals properly. The problem wasn't so much as just buggy code, it was code that was designed only to do reads. Writes barely work at all (!), reads weren't as efficient as they could be and forget about doing anything that spanned more than 3 models, never mind cross-repo stuff. With those requirements I decided to rewrite it, and so far it's been really good -- I should have some working many to many association code in the next week or so. 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
