On Tuesday 03 Apr 2007, Dinner wrote:
Although I *did* hear that Doug was moth-balling Reactor to work on
Transfer...
April 1st was two days ago.
--
Tom Chiverton
Helping to evangelistically utilize extensible systems
on: http://thefalken.livejournal.com
On 4/1/07, Damien M wrote:
With a site redesign you can do that. That's what I'm looking at myself.
That's why I LOVE REACTOR, especially the field alias stuff..
It works either way. Sweet.
Reactor for CF will do introspection, and I ain't fooling, you only need the
XML stuff if you want
) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sun 4/1/2007 2:02 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: ORM with convention over configuration?
You mean can they adhere to your convention or can they be configured to
adhere to a bespoke convention?
-Original Message-
From: Damien McKenna
To: CF-Talk
Sent: Sun Apr
McKenna [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sun 4/1/2007 12:08 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: ORM with convention over configuration?
It there's a way of configuring a convention, that'd be fine. Basically CF is
able to obtain all of the metadata from the database so it shouldn't have to be
manually
://www.reedexpo.com
-Original Message-
From: Damien McKenna
To: CF-Talk
Sent: Sun Apr 01 17:08:31 2007
Subject: RE: ORM with convention over configuration?
It there's a way of configuring a convention, that'd be fine. Basically CF
is able to obtain all of the metadata from the database so it shouldn't
On 4/1/07, Damien McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Another way to consider this, is an ORM with intelligent defaults. Fusebox 6
looks to be going in this route, that certain configuration items have
defaults suitable for most basic usage, allowing you to limit the amount of
hardcoding
-Original Message-
From: Sean Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sun 4/1/2007 2:06 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: ORM with convention over configuration?
On 4/1/07, Damien McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, current thinking is that you won't *need* XML to write a Fusebox
6
It's only current limitation appears to be an inability to
deal with tables with more than one primary key.
By definition, a table can only have one primary key (which, of course, may
consist of more than one field). Rails can't deal with compound keys, which
is what I suspect you meant. As I
Do any of the current CF ORMs adhere to the notion of convention over
configuration? For example, if I tell them to look at the products table I'd
expect a field called id or product_id to be identified as the primary key,
other fields ending in _id should be identified as foreign keys, etc,
-Original Message-
From: Damien McKenna
To: CF-Talk
Sent: Sun Apr 01 03:20:39 2007
Subject: ORM with convention over configuration?
Do any of the current CF ORMs adhere to the notion of convention over
configuration? For example, if I tell them to look at the products table
I'd expect
10 matches
Mail list logo
