On 10/26/05, Dave Howorth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 2005-10-26 at 17:35 +0100, Aaron Trevena wrote: > > I'd agree with this. Maypole should be simple to use, if you want to > > provide stuff in your model for use outside of maypole, then that is > > beyond the scope of this project (for now at least, maybe version 3). > > My point is that this stuff should already be in the model and so > available for Maypole to use without extra configuration. That makes it > even simpler to use Maypole. The deficiency is in the current model > implementation, not in the Maypole framework. So we should fix the > model. That's what Peter did, it's what Dave implemented in CDBI-FB and > what I did with my autogenerated code. Why is it now suddenly wrong?
The thing is we can't just rely on CDBI malarky, if we want maypole to be usable with other ORM Models then we need to provide a of handling this information independant of cdbi and it's host of plugins. I'd appreciate some suggestions of how the API should work. My plan would be to provide an API within the generic Maypole::Model class that allows you to get and set column types, possibly overloaded if necessary by model code. This is pretty much how I see the form code like untaint, etc working too. Cheers, A. ------------------------------------------------------- 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 Visit http://www.jboss.com/services/certification for more information _______________________________________________ Maypole-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/maypole-users
