Does anyone have any good ideas for a namespace for module that augment or
extend RDBO, but that are not part of the official RDBO distribution? The
first thing that springs to my mind is:
Rose::DBx::*
That'd be for both modules that are related to Rose::DB and modules that are
related to
On May 23, 2007, at 9:36 AM, John Siracusa wrote:
Does anyone have any good ideas for a namespace for module that
augment or
extend RDBO, but that are not part of the official RDBO
distribution? The
first thing that springs to my mind is:
Rose::DBx::*
At first I really liked
On 5/23/07 12:53 PM, Jonathan Vanasco wrote:
On May 23, 2007, at 9:36 AM, John Siracusa wrote:
Does anyone have any good ideas for a namespace for module that augment or
extend RDBO, but that are not part of the official RDBO distribution? The
first thing that springs to my mind is:
John Siracusa wrote:
On 5/22/07 9:34 PM, mla wrote:
Is that the recommended way of doing this?
Yep, you got it exactly right :)
Cool :-)
I noticed that omitting the override_existing does
not raise an exception; the redefinition is just
ignored.
Is that expected? I saw in the
On May 23, 2007, at 10:48 AM, John Siracusa wrote:
On 5/23/07 12:53 PM, Jonathan Vanasco wrote:
On May 23, 2007, at 9:36 AM, John Siracusa wrote:
Does anyone have any good ideas for a namespace for module that
augment or
extend RDBO, but that are not part of the official RDBO
On 5/23/07 1:49 PM, mla wrote:
I noticed that omitting the override_existing does
not raise an exception; the redefinition is just
ignored.
Is that expected?
Yes, because you'renot overriding an existing sub.
MyApp::DB::Object::Metadata has no existing default_update_changes_only()
John Siracusa wrote:
Does anyone have any good ideas for a namespace for module that augment or
extend RDBO, but that are not part of the official RDBO distribution? The
first thing that springs to my mind is:
Rose::DBx::*
That'd be for both modules that are related to Rose::DB and
John Siracusa wrote on 5/23/07 1:07 PM:
On 5/23/07 2:01 PM, mla wrote:
Where would an extension of Rose::Object go? I wouldn't expect
it under Rose::DBx, right? I'd expect something like Rose::ObjectX
in that case (following the DBx convention), no?
Yeah, something like that.
