ah, excellent yea your new way is definitely better. I'd like to keep the delete in there so i can remove records if absolutely necessary for now.
On Nov 4, 5:48 pm, Jeremy Evans <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
