Hey Michael Yeah, I see what you're saying. default_property_options should probably be a block though rather than a method to allow different sets of defaults
I literally finished doing a without_auto_validations block moments before I saw your reply so I uploaded it to basecamp anyways http://datamapper.lighthouseapp.com/projects/20609-datamapper/tickets/766 On Jan 14, 10:34 am, Michael Klishin <[email protected]> wrote: > On 14.01.2009, at 11:38, heda wrote: > > > > > I guess a better idea might be to use it as a block > > > class Model > > include DataMapper::Resource > > > property :id, Serial > > > without_auto_validations do > > property :x, String > > property :y, String > > end > > > property :name, String > > end > > > Any thoughts? > > What if we just add something like default_property_options? It can be > used just like > default_repository class method. This would be much simpler to > implement and to follow > (since scope does not change). > > Then each property call will simply merge given values with a hash of > defaults you defined on your class. > It won't affect performance either, because it is a boot time code, so > we can extend it to idea of contexts used > by other parts of DM. > > What do you think? > > MK --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
