On Jan 1, 2009, at 2:25 AM, Dan Kubb (dkubb) wrote:
> > Michael, > >>> I am of the opinion that these complex multi-repo problems should >>> not be attempted in v1.0. Do we really have that strong a need for >>> it? >> >> The whole idea originally was to rewrite poor DM spec suite first, >> and >> then fix bugs having something to protect your back as you go. >> I think this is extremely important in 1.0, and 1.0 should not happen >> until the effort is finished. > > However, Many to Many associations were a sticking point. The code > passed maybe half of the specs, and the choice was to either try to > hack the Relationship, RelationshipChain and ManyToMany classes to > work or rewrite the internals properly. The problem wasn't so much as > just buggy code, it was code that was designed only to do reads. > Writes barely work at all (!), reads weren't as efficient as they > could be and forget about doing anything that spanned more than 3 > models, never mind cross-repo stuff. With those requirements I > decided to rewrite it, and so far it's been really good -- I should > have some working many to many association code in the next week or > so. Whoop! Thank you. My first experience with a legacy system I had to deal with 5 databases with cross repository references (foreign key in one database referencing primary key in another). So IMO, the cross repository support need is real. Have fun, Roy --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
