--- John Siracusa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 4/23/07, Ovid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > http://tinyurl.com/26hpwz
>
> What's wrong with implementing the scenario described at that URL
> exactly as it's explained, by using multi-column foreign keys and a
> check constraint on the subtype table(s)?
My only concern was how portable the solution would be. Theoretically,
Rose could add enough value to make it work regardless of the database.
For example, right now, our version of MySQL silently truncates values
not in an enum list and add the empty string into enum fields. Rose
catches this error up front (thank god!).
> > A simple syntax could be:
> >
> > distributed_keys => [
> > server => {
> > dedicated => {
> > class => 'My::Server::Dedicated',
> > key_columns => { id => 'server_id' },
> > },
> > shared => {
> > class => 'My::Server::Dedicated',
> > key_columns => { id => 'server_id' },
> > },
> > }
> > ],
>
> Is that syntactic sugar for the multi-column fk scenario described
> earlier, or is it something else?
Just syntactic sugar.
Cheers,
Ovid
--
Buy the book -- http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/perlhks/
Perl and CGI -- http://users.easystreet.com/ovid/cgi_course/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
_______________________________________________
Rose-db-object mailing list
Rose-db-object@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rose-db-object
