On 4/25/06, Clayton Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What kind of problems can I expect to run into if I reimplement the
> plural_to_singular and the other related methods to do the equivalent of:
>
> sub plural_to_singular
> {
> my($self, $word) = @_;
> return $word;
> }
>
> I ask because I'm trying to determine whether I should implement my
> conventions in code or just adopt yours :)
As with most CM stuff, the only problems (as in "fatal errors") you'll
run into will occur when there are naming conflicts. Relationships
need to have unique names per class. Ditto for foreign keys.
Obviously, there can only be one method per class with a given name,
and methods created for relationships and foreign keys are usually
based on the names of those things. Anyway, as long as all these
names don't conflict within a given class, everything should work.
Whether the names make sense is another matter :) If you want to go
whole hog, it's probably best to come up with your own conventions on
paper first, then create your custom CM based on that spec. The
closer your conventions are to the default RDBO conventions, the less
code you'll have to add to your subclass, of course.
-John
-------------------------------------------------------
Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier
Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid0709&bid&3057&dat1642
_______________________________________________
Rose-db-object mailing list
Rose-db-object@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rose-db-object
