On 1/31/07, John Siracusa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, does this method type seem useful? If so, what do you think of
> the method type name ("find") and the default method name format
> ("find_<relationship-name>")?
Yes, this is very useful. I do this type of query all the time, and
it is one of the very few things that I missed from my Class::DBI
days. As for the name, 'find' is clear and concise, so it works for
me.
> Finally, should this method type be
> created by default for all one-to-many relationships, or should it
> have to be manually requested in the relationship setup?
For me it is useful enough that it is worth including by default. But
as long as it is configurable in the convention manager or base class
it's OK either way (I actually haven't had to use the convention
manager yet, since the default conventions used in RDBO match up
closely with the way I like to do things).
Cheers,
Cees
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
_______________________________________________
Rose-db-object mailing list
Rose-db-object@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rose-db-object
