On May 18, 2007, at 9:00 AM, John Siracusa wrote:
> Since those sections are clearly labeled and there are links to all
> the major sections (in the HTML version of the POD, that is), I don't
> think it's too onerous for those people that want to skip them to do
> so.
Since nobody else agreed wi
That's a pretty cool approach, and it solves adding a new record
smoothly. But what it misses is the ability to fetch all a that have a
non-archived b:
SELECT * FROM a JOIN b ON (b.a_id=a.id) WHERE b.archived_at IS NULL
or
My::A::Manager->get_as_iterator(requre_objects => [ 'b' ]);
Here's another
On 5/18/07, Derek Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Am I modeling this wrong? How can I get Rose to archive the previous
> $a->b when I say $a->b($new_b_record)? Or at least try to save the new
> 'b' record so that my DB will throw an error about a clashing unique
> key?
A ...-to-one expects the
On 5/18/07, Derek Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> It's on the list, but not at the top just yet. (Even just collecting
>> and editing recipes takes time.) If someone else wants to head this
>> up, let me know.
>
> Is there a Wiki installed somewhere we can start working on in an
> ad-hoc fas
>
> It's on the list, but not at the top just yet. (Even just collecting
> and editing recipes takes time.) If someone else wants to head this
> up, let me know.
Is there a Wiki installed somewhere we can start working on in an
ad-hoc fashion?
---
Hello all,
Please help me get this working right in Rose,
CREATE TABLE a (
id serial primary key,
name text
);
CREATE TABLE b (
id serial primary key,
a_id integer,
archived_at timestamp
UNIQUE KEY (a_id, archived_at)
);
What I am trying to express here is that "a" is related to man
On 5/18/07, Jonathan Vanasco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John- Maybe you could do a callout for recipes, and then cull the
> best into it?
It's on the list, but not at the top just yet. (Even just collecting
and editing recipes takes time.) If someone else wants to head this
up, let me know.
>
> Sure, but since the tutorial is the only piece of non-reference
> documentation, I tried to spell out as much as I could. Obviously,
> one document can't satisfy everyone. (I've also had people tell me the
> tutorial is too terse and needs to be expanded! :) I think there's a
> place for a qui
I'm actually a big fan of the docs the way that they are, and a bit of a
"gentle" introduction is a nice departure from the extreme "brevity" of most
open source docs. I certainly didn't find that the few paragraphs of
introduction interferred with my ability to absorb the material in any
way!
If
On 5/18/07, Marvin Humphrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On May 18, 2007, at 9:00 AM, John Siracusa wrote:
>> Since those sections are clearly labeled and there are links to all
>> the major sections (in the HTML version of the POD, that is), I don't
>> think it's too onerous for those people that
On May 18, 2007, at 9:00 AM, John Siracusa wrote:
> Since those sections are clearly labeled and there are links to all
> the major sections (in the HTML version of the POD, that is), I don't
> think it's too onerous for those people that want to skip them to do
> so.
Skip the "introduction"? Y
On 5/18/07, Marvin Humphrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I suggest that the "conventions" material be cleared from its current
> position. Moving it to a footnote, to a separate document a la
> references to the "Rose Development Policy", or perhaps even omitting
> it entirely would allow the subs
Greets,
I've been tasked with learning Rose, so this is my one chance to
approach the documentation naively. My first impression is that it
seems admirably thorough but encumbered by well-meaning excess in
places.
Much of the documentation begins with scene-setting. For instance,
Rose::
13 matches
Mail list logo
