http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=8007
--- Comment #44 from Galen Charlton <[email protected]> --- Jonathan: first, let me thank you for engaging with DBIC. (In reply to Kyle M Hall from comment #43) > (In reply to Chris Cormack from comment #41) > > I have to say, I am really not a fan of the ::DataObject:: and ::Service:: > > idea. I may be overruled on that I guess. I'd prefer a Discharge class I > > think. > > I believe in our developer discussions at KohaCon13 the basic consensus was > that the DataObject layer was not needed and was just over-complicating > everything and adding unnecessary overhead ( it was only in our initial > designs to join biblio and biblioitems virtually ). I agree. There are *some* specific cases, most notably bibs, where an intermediate class might be useful to deal with legacy defects in the current data model, and some cases where complicated business logic suggests a container class, but I am not in favor of creating DataObject classes or the like automatically. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. _______________________________________________ Koha-bugs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-bugs website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
