I agree on both points (foreign keys and documentation). Please open a ticket asking for proper foreign key support and I'll work on it next week.
Derek On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 6:05 PM, Julian Backes <[email protected]>wrote: > Hi Derek, > > > It's been a long time since I looked at that particular code, so I may > > have misspoke. Having said that, if it's currently disabled in the > > driver I'm not sure why and I would want to review it before saying that > > it works properly in all cases. > I think the problem here is that the user expects (like I did) foreign > keys to be created if he uses mapper classes referencing other mapper > classes. This "behaviour" should at least be mentioned somewhere in the > documentation (btw, the documentation is in my opinion the biggest > problems of Lift at the moment). > I think, using a relational database without foreign keys is somehow not > very useful because you never really know whether you have referential > integrity... > It would be great if you looked at the code and enabled it. This would > really be an improvement for the mapper stuff in Lift 1.1 > > Julian > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Lift" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<liftweb%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en. > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lift" 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/liftweb?hl=en.
