Jacques, > Agreed, just that in this case I think it does make sense for it to > work similarly. Doesn't seem like its catering to lowest common > denominator as this is how DM was working up until fairly recently.
Actually, as long as I've been involved with DM, Resource#save!, Model#create!, Collection#update!, etc never worked that way. In fact, Resource#save! wasn't even part of dm-core until 0.10, up until now it was just part of dm-validations. > By the way, that snippet (http://gist.github.com/170779) Dan provided > is a friggin awesome technique. The syntax looks atrocious (ruby > really needs a cleaner way to have models define class behavior), but > that'll be incredibly useful now that I have it on my snippet library. Yeah, I agree, it is a bit gross, but the messiness is contained in a single spot in the code base so the overall impact is small. Even still, if anyone has suggestions on a cleaner API, I'd love to hear it. Actually, I was thinking what if it would be possible to define properties, relationships and instance methods in a *module*, and then include that module in model classes. The module would basically end up looking just like a model does, but you'd get the benefit of being able to share code between multiple models without any special syntax. -- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
