Hi Matt, No need for heating the debate. I feel now we are at least getting into something. I would like to validate the API first before I go into the details about the needed data structures. Otherwise I would have to think up all possible data structures supporting all possible APIs - it is more economic to first narrow the search space.
I can accept that you don't want to have the bridge relations listed by the relationships method. You did not really answered my argument that "If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ..." and about hiding low level details (which should be good for high level interfaces). But I can understand that it might be difficult or something and that generally you decide. OK. But then the only other way to have the reflection I can see is to add another method - this is what I wanted to validate before I start looking into the needed datastructures. It does not matter at this moment if it is called many_to_many_relationships or bridge_relationships or any other name, but rather just that we choose to add another method. Cheers, Zbyszek On 1/31/07, Matt S Trout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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]/
-- Zbigniew Lukasiak http://brudnopis.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ 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]/
