Jon, Please explain. There's nothing improper about it imo. Relational integrity remains totally intact in the db at all times in the examples I gave.
Lawrence > Lawrence, > In my religion, your examples of these exceptional cases are caused by > improper RDB relational integrity. ;) > Jon > > On Oct 30, 2:39 pm, Lawrence Pit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> That was my decision. It's a religious thing I don't expect everyone >>> to agree with. I'm firmly in the "exceptions should not be used for >>> flow-control" camp. ;-) >>> >>> The exception being that a get for a specific id should always raise >>> because it's an exceptional situation not to find the object then. >>> >> Imho a get for a specific id should also not raise an exception. Just a >> nil please. >> >> Two areas where not finding a result for a specific id is not that >> exceptional: >> >> - even though you have the reference key value, a paranoid bit might >> prevent you from seeing the actual record >> >> - due to lazy loading strategies internally to dm, dm might have a >> reference to a record that existed at the time a collection of ids was >> loaded for an association, but as soon as dm iterates over the >> collection later on, one of the referenced records may have been deleted >> by another user or process. Instead of failing for the whole iteration >> process I'd continue and return a collection where one of its members is >> nil. >> >> Lawrence >> > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DataMapper" 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/datamapper?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
