Replies inline --- David E Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What are you talking about? I don't see how this > could be true at > all. Just because a field is on an entity doesn't > mean it can't be > null, even if it is a foreign key. When all fields > in an fk are null > the foreign key constraint is ignored. > I really am not interested in rehashing a discussion that you're going to ignore and walk away from without considering my approach or pointing out how it is inferior to the current approach. I'm also not interested in a discussion that you're going to brush off and point me to links that actually support my assertions. I don't see the discussion as a waste of time, so I am willing to have it if you're willing to stick around for it. > I may not be understanding what you're trying to > express or what sort > of limitation you're seeing, but if this were coming > from a different > source it's the type of thing I'd label and file > away as a baseless > FUD attack on the project... ;) > How is pointing out a flaw, and then volunteering to take the time to correct it constitute fear, uncertainty or doubt? I eat the dog food, so I'm just as interested in it tasting good as you are from the POV of selling it. Please don't label me as a ditractor for suggesting things could be a little better and also supplying step by step explainations on how to accomplish the improvements. > > Yes, please do submit it, but please also respect > the feedback that > this will most likely never replace the current > party relationship > stuff, especially not if the various objections to > it are not > addressed where it would not sufficiently replace > existing > functionality. > > The way to submit such patches is as a new feature, > not a replacement > for an extremely commonly used, understood, and > accepted feature. > > -David > That couldn't be code mongering talk there, could it? David, you've already mentioned how to approach it. And I'm taking your advice because you've personally taught me on several occasions not to waste time touching the code base on things that take time to write. Because if they took time to write then they probably take too much time to review and solicit feedback. I apologize for the negative tone of this post. It's just frustrating to have discussions that sound like the community is behind modularization of components and making it simple to customize and reuse great logic patterns so that it can be implemented in the unique fashion that is your (general audience) company, but then hold on to so tightly the things that are preventing that from happening.
