On 8/30/07, Jonathan LaCour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ben Bangert wrote: > > > I've added a test for basic associable use, and am adding another that > > specifically exposes this bug. There are people using the extension > > though, so I'm wondering if its much trouble to put a patch in now > > before the merge of the better associable integration is done?
I'll look into that and see if I can create a fix quickly. I'll have to think about it. I'm not sure it'd be easy. > > I put in a small fix earlier that restores a lookup from earlier > > which remedies of_kind relations to other packages when used with > > associable. That doesn't seem to fix this bug though. > I saw that you reverted this change. While it might not be the way that > you want it done, It's not a question of whether it's the way I want it done or not. It's just that this particular code will never find more targets than the code above it, so it's just useless. I thought this was clear in the log message... > we have people out there using associable, and we need > to have *something* working for them now. Things were working before we > merged the autodelay branch was merged, and went broken without being > noticed because we were missing a test for associables. Yeah, I know. > Whats the ETA on getting your *real* associable fix in place? I don't > want our current users to be abandoned here. Besides, as it is currently, the associable thing is not very useful anyway since all it does is let you have one less table in case you have more than two many to many relationships to a particular entity, at the expense of slower relationships. That's a tradeoff I don't understand. What's the problem with having a few more tables? So for me, users currently using the associable thing, could just as well use standard many to many relationships. Anyway, even with that said, I'll try to correct things as soon as possible. I could commit what I have quickly (only need to clean it up a bit). After all, if they don't use the polymorphic relation, they won't have more bugs than when using associable (I've found one but we can fix it later). I'm not entirely happy with what I've done though. One problem is with the extra methods attached to the entity. As you've seen from the syntax I've proposed, I've now moved polymorphic relationships right into the core. But I don't like to have some methods just appear in that case. When using a specific extension, it's feels ok, but here, I don't like it. Other than that I'm not entirely sure it's a good idea to move all this stuff to the core. For: - it provides a nicer syntax. Overloading the standard relationship feel natural. In an extension, we'd have to use different statements than the "normal" ones. Against: - it clutters the core. Any thoughts? -- Gaëtan de Menten http://openhex.org --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SQLElixir" 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/sqlelixir?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
