I think i disagree with the general motivation here. The ability to arbitrarily map models and properties over data sources is a vital tool when pulling data out of legacy stores.
What we need to figure out a way to do is separate the notion of repositories as scopes/contexts (which i use regularly) from the ability to give fine grained control over how a model is defined across stores. Basically when it comes down to it, i don't like the idea of coupling models to specific repositories. Models are mutable for a reason. That's one of the things that impressed me so much about DM when i first started using it. You just write your description of what data you want access to, and boom, you've got querying over your data. I think also that part of the lack of clarity may arise out of the fact that once your data is in ruby land (i.e. you've got an instance) you've lost all sense of how that data was mapped into ruby. Perhaps if there were better ways to interrogate repositories, and/or drill down on how results were gathered from repositories, some of clarity issues would be alleviated. Regarding the identity map Tony, that seems to me like something that needs to be fixed in the ID map. But again maybe making DM smarter about repositories would make that easier. -- 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.
