On Thu, 19 Oct 2006, Drew Taylor wrote:
> One thing I discovered after my post which I think is CRITICAL: > has_one & might_have both use the PK of the local (what's the proper > terminology?) table as the FK into the foreign table. Perhaps saying > something like this for the might_have docs: > > "Creates an optional one-to-one relationship with a class, where the > primary key of the foreign class is equal to the primary key of the > local table. Ie. Foo.id == Bar.id. Unlike belongs_to, might_have ONLY > suppports using each tables primary key as the key column." > > I'm sure I said that in a very ineloquent way, but hopefully you get the idea. > belongs_to and has_one/might_have are complete opposites.. Yes the naming of belongs_to is rorrible, I blame mst (who will no doubt blame AR) .. belongs_to means: a field (or fields) in THIS table is a foreign key (contains the primary key of) THAT other table. has_one means: there is a row in THAT table which contains THIS tables primary key. ditto might_have, except its not guaranteed to be there. HTH Jess _______________________________________________ List: http://lists.rawmode.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dbix-class Wiki: http://dbix-class.shadowcatsystems.co.uk/ IRC: irc.perl.org#dbix-class SVN: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/repos/bast/trunk/DBIx-Class/ Searchable Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
