On 3/9/06, Perrin Harkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I never understood the point of this. That code just replaces the name > "My::App::Artist" or similar. It seems like an attempt to make model > classes interchangeable without modifying the driving code, but they're > really not interchangeable.
The main point really is code clearness and structure. It's an MVC framework and you're asking the model to do its job (the same happens to the view). It's really a thin wrapper, but a thin wrapper that guarantees that everything works well within the framework (such as using the central configuration file). But if you start using the new DBIx::Class Schema API it starts to make even more sense, since you're asking for a specific schema and tables are merely resultsets of this schema. The traditional class based approach is considered deprecated for DBIx::Class (they love to deprecate stuff). -Nilson Santos F. Jr. ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting language that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live webcast and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding territory! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid0944&bid$1720&dat1642 _______________________________________________ Rose-db-object mailing list Rose-db-object@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rose-db-object
