On Nov 4, 2:25 pm, Tal <[email protected]> wrote: > I was wanting to have destroy set a state rather then remove the row > from the db. Is there any reason this wouldn't be a good way to go > about it? > > def destroy > before_destroy > update(:state => 'removed') > after_destroy > end > def_dataset_method :destroy
If you don't want to allow deleting records at all, I'd override delete instead: def delete update(:state => 'removed') self end If you want delete to delete but destroy not to: def _destroy return save_failure(:destroy) if before_destroy == false update(:state => 'removed') after_destroy self end Your way isn't bad, but it doesn't honor the object's use_transactions setting, doesn't follow the convention that a before_hook returning false cancels the action, and doesn't return the object. Jeremy --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sequel-talk" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sequel-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
