Dan,
I guess I just don't see what your talking about yet and should just
wait and see.  Is I mentioned, I haven't wrapped my head around these
issues in quite a long time.
My current impression is that if you want to support any kind of write
operations across multi-stores, you cannot avoid the distributed
transaction problem.
thanks, Jon

On Jan 1, 4:25 pm, "Dan Kubb (dkubb)" <[email protected]> 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.
>
> I know you already posted that you misread Jon's post, but I wanted to
> address this just so everyone's clear.
>
> DM is supposed to support cross-repo associations right now.  There is
> code that attempts to do it, poorly, and makes all sorts of
> assumptions that turn out not to be true when you begin to break it
> down.
>
> The association behavior has already been specced, and work has begun
> to make dkubb/dm-core pass those specs.  There's still some work to be
> done, but the results have been really good and I encourage people to
> compare them with sam/dm-core.
>
> 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.
>
> Dan
> (dkubb)
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to