Christopher H. Laco wrote:
>> So, the question now becomes, what does everything think?
>>
>> Should we leave ->name alone, and make something new like
>> result_source_name(), or do we forge ahead with changing the meaning of
>> what ->name() returns?
>>
>> -=Chris
>>
>
> The more I think about this, the more I don't like it.
> I think adding table_name, and having from() return table_name is a good
> thing. But I think name should just return what it always has.
>
> name() can mean different things to different modules, in different
> parts of the dist. I'd personally much rather see source_name(). That's
> a little more clear IMHO on what it will return.
Mmm, I can see that one. Plus it means the same source can exist in more than
one schema with a different name in the scheme but the same ->name.
Not sure source_name is quite right though. schema_name suggests the name of
the schema, name_in_schema sucks. Er. Ideas, anybody?
--
Matt S Trout Offering custom development, consultancy and support
Technical Director contracts for Catalyst, DBIx::Class and BAST. Contact
Shadowcat Systems Ltd. mst (at) shadowcatsystems.co.uk for more information
+ Help us build a better perl ORM: http://dbix-class.shadowcatsystems.co.uk/ +
_______________________________________________
List: http://lists.rawmode.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dbix-class
Wiki: http://dbix-class.shadowcatsystems.co.uk/
IRC: irc.perl.org#dbix-class
SVN: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/repos/bast/trunk/DBIx-Class/
