Re: Model with no direct database access, instead use our existing API

2007-02-07 Thread nate
Right now, DboSource is the best example available. Examining the relationship between Model and DboSource shows us that (besides doing HABTM relationships, where we're still working on abstracting a few things) a custom DataSource really only needs a few methods in order to support a full range

Re: Model with no direct database access, instead use our existing API

2007-02-07 Thread kabturek
Hi Nate, this is interesting - could you write somthing more about it ? (a post ;) ? ) Maybe some example ? What are the conventions for such datasources etc? Up until now - people just used $useTable = false and put all the logic in the model. greets, Marcin Domanski On Feb 7, 3:46 am, "nate" <[

Re: Model with no direct database access, instead use our existing API

2007-02-07 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So that means that the soap logic in this example doesn't belong in the model but rather in a class extending DataSource? http://cakebaker.42dh.com/2006/07/17/a-simple-soap-example/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the

Re: Model with no direct database access, instead use our existing API

2007-02-06 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ok to sum up. If I was "forced" to use our existing legacy API, and could not by any means allow the framework to make the direct database calls, then the very best move would be to encapsulate the existing API functions into the Controllers, and basically have an empty Model class? The model wo

Re: Model with no direct database access, instead use our existing API

2007-02-06 Thread Chris Hartjes
On 2/6/07, nate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I definitely wasn't agreeing with you, but I wasn't really making fun > of you either. I'll give you a hint: there's a reason why we have a > base DataSource class, which is extended by DboSource, which talks to > the database on behalf of a model.

Re: Model with no direct database access, instead use our existing API

2007-02-06 Thread nate
I definitely wasn't agreeing with you, but I wasn't really making fun of you either. I'll give you a hint: there's a reason why we have a base DataSource class, which is extended by DboSource, which talks to the database on behalf of a model. Felix's Google Analytics model is actually a pretty p

RE: Model with no direct database access, instead use our existing API

2007-02-06 Thread Mariano Iglesias
om.ar -Mensaje original- De: cake-php@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] En nombre de Chris Hartjes Enviado el: Martes, 06 de Febrero de 2007 09:52 p.m. Para: cake-php@googlegroups.com Asunto: Re: Model with no direct database access, instead use our existing API I can't tell if Nate i

Re: Model with no direct database access, instead use our existing API

2007-02-06 Thread Chris Hartjes
On 2/6/07, nate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Feb 6, 3:47 pm, "Chris Hartjes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > You can create models that don't do database stuff, that's for sure. > > Then it will surprise you to learn that that's exactly what we're > doing. > > I can't tell if Nate is agreei

RE: Model with no direct database access, instead use our existing API

2007-02-06 Thread Mariano Iglesias
: cake-php@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] En nombre de nate Enviado el: Martes, 06 de Febrero de 2007 08:35 p.m. Para: Cake PHP Asunto: Re: Model with no direct database access, instead use our existing API > You can create models that don't do database stuff, that's for s

Re: Model with no direct database access, instead use our existing API

2007-02-06 Thread nate
On Feb 6, 3:47 pm, "Chris Hartjes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You can create models that don't do database stuff, that's for sure. Then it will surprise you to learn that that's exactly what we're doing. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because

Re: Model with no direct database access, instead use our existing API

2007-02-06 Thread Samuel DeVore
have you seen this on cakebaker? http://cakebaker.42dh.com/2006/07/17/a-simple-soap-example/ On 2/6/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Can I replace the mechanism from the Model that directly interacts > with the database with specific API functions already in place in our > ex

Re: Model with no direct database access, instead use our existing API

2007-02-06 Thread Pablo Viojo
You should create a new APIModel, for example, that your Model extends so it encapsulates all the logic needed to communicate with your system through the API. This way you can use the model in the same way you used the "normal" ones. Depending on the complexity of the API it can be more or less d

Re: Model with no direct database access, instead use our existing API

2007-02-06 Thread Chris Hartjes
On 2/6/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Can I replace the mechanism from the Model that directly interacts > with the database with specific API functions already in place in our > existing application. You can create models that don't do database stuff, that's for sure. I'm n

Model with no direct database access, instead use our existing API

2007-02-06 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Can I replace the mechanism from the Model that directly interacts with the database with specific API functions already in place in our existing application. Example: Model => Contact contact.save --> this would normally generate the appropriate INSERT sql, but I want to do the following: our