Re: ORM with convention over configuration?

2007-04-03 Thread Tom Chiverton
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

Re: ORM with convention over configuration?

2007-04-02 Thread Dinner
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 thi

RE: ORM with convention over configuration?

2007-04-01 Thread Dave Watts
> 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

RE: ORM with convention over configuration?

2007-04-01 Thread Damien McKenna
-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&#x

Re: ORM with convention over configuration?

2007-04-01 Thread Sean Corfield
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

Re: ORM with convention over configuration?

2007-04-01 Thread Robertson-Ravo, Neil (RX)
te at http://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 data

RE: ORM with convention over configuration?

2007-04-01 Thread Damien McKenna
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

RE: ORM with convention over configuration?

2007-04-01 Thread Damien McKenna
-Ravo, Neil (RX) [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-Tal

Re: ORM with convention over configuration?

2007-03-31 Thread Robertson-Ravo, Neil (RX)
You mean can they adhere to your convention or can they be configured to adhere to a bespoke convention? "This e-mail is from Reed Exhibitions (Gateway House, 28 The Quadrant, Richmond, Surrey, TW9 1DN, United Kingdom), a division of Reed Business, Registered in England, Number 678540. It con