Thanks again, that really helps.
So it's fine to have something like:
has db {
return Induction::Schema->connect
}
On Tuesday, March 28, 2017 at 9:22:11 PM UTC+1, Stefan Adams wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 2:42 PM, james foss <[email protected]
> <javascript:>> wrote:
>
>> Is this documented anywhere, just so I can get my head around it?
>
>
> I doubt that it is because App::Model::Name has nothing to do with
> Mojolicious (necessarily). So with App::Model::Name being completely
> independent of your Mojolicious app, you have to pass whatever objects your
> Mojo app has to your model. It's not recommended to pass the entire Mojo
> app object (app) to a model because of the whole MVC idea of keeping things
> separate, but I think it's appropriate to pass your database object.
>
> Here's information about the model layer in Mojolicious
> <http://mojolicious.org/perldoc/Mojolicious/Guides/Growing#Model>. But
> it doesn't talk about passing an object in, in order to "make the
> separation of concerns more visible".
>
> You could think about it this way...
>
> If your model needs access to the database, let the model establish the
> connection to the database itself instead of the Mojolicious app, and
> therefore no need to pass in a db object. Then when your app needs access
> to database level stuff, it asks the model to retrieve and return that data.
>
> I'd be thrilled to see more discussion on this. This is just my
> outsider's understanding of this.
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Mojolicious" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/mojolicious.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
