On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 17:02 -0600, Peter Speltz wrote: > On 11/18/05, David Baird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > class_of() is in completely the wrong place, and it's going to make it > > awkward to implement multiple models (which isn't near the top of my > > list, but it's on there somewhere). Anyway, class_of needs access to > > the request/controller, because the mapping information is held in the > > config object (either as a hash, in ::Model::CDBI::Plain, or via a > > method call on the loader object under Model::CDBI. It's the model > > that is irrelevant. So class_of() should be a request/controller > > method, not a model method. > > Good point. It' s also very misleading because you think " I have a > model class, I can get model class for any table." When the reality is > "If i have a $r , I can get the class of another table" . > > So the question still remains : should model classes themselves be > able to do find the class of another table of their own power?
Yes, this is the most important point IMHO. There's no information here that has to do with maypole, it's a model-only transformation. The only connection it has with the controller is $r->config and that, as I keep saying, is broken. > Simon has given the us the illusion that they can and thus implies he > thinks they should. I think they should as they are all part of a > family and thus it is natural they know a fair bit about eachother. Cheers, Dave ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the JBoss Inc. Get Certified Today Register for a JBoss Training Course. Free Certification Exam for All Training Attendees Through End of 2005. For more info visit: http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7628&alloc_id=16845&op=click _______________________________________________ Maypole-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/maypole-devel
