On 31 Jan 2007, at 10:44, Zbigniew Lukasiak wrote:
Neither of these are acceptable; please review the IRC logs where I
explained the design constraints involved.
I can only see you mentioned Moose as the future basis of DBIC. I
need to admit I don't see how this is in contradiction with any of
those proposals - even if I do see that when we have Moose then
perhaps neither is needed any more.
I can also see that you say that many_to_many are not real relations -
I covered that point in my email.
Actually, I said that many-many is a bridge across two relationships
and that we needed to cover the general case of that in terms of the
result_source level infrastructure, including providing metadata.
What I was expecting was a proposal of how to handle that and what
metadata would be required, plus how it would work in with the
current implementation.
Instead, you sent a message suggesting two options I'd already told
you weren't of any use (it's NOT A RELATIONSHIP so your option 1 is
clearly useless as I've had to tell you every single time we've
discussed this, and it's a general case of relationship bridges so
clearly many_to_many_relationships as a one-off hack is just as stupid).
RFC when you've actually sat down and thought about it, please.
--
Matt S Trout, Technical Director, Shadowcat Systems Ltd.
Offering custom development, consultancy and support contracts for
Catalyst,
DBIx::Class and BAST. Contact mst (at) shadowcatsystems.co.uk for
details.
+ 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/
Searchable Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
