On Jan 23, 2008 10:55 AM, Ted Zlatanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 17:17:18 -0500 "John Siracusa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > JS> Anyway, when building a single super-base class, I don't think it's > JS> particularly ugly to set up your class hierarchy and then yank in a > JS> particular method (say, init_db()) from another specific class. Or > JS> like I said before, you could go the Class::C3 route and avoid all > JS> this. > > So I'd inherit from My::DB::Object first, then Rose::DB::Object::Cached?
That should work as long as My::DB::Object doesn't define its own custom load(), save(), or forget(). > That might work if I understand the docs correctly. Have you done this > before, and are there any things I should beware? If it's a supported > solution to my problem, it should be in the docs because I'd imagine at > least a few more people will run into it. There's really no "supported/unsupported" distinction here. If the public methods resolve in the way you want, then you win :) > I think the Class::C3 solution is the best approach, thanks for suggesting it. Yeah, that simplifies this situation greatly (at the cost of another dependency and possibly a new set of bugs/issues :) -John ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Rose-db-object mailing list Rose-db-object@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rose-db-object
