On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 02:28:47PM +0100, Pedro Melo wrote:
> >In DBIx::Class terms, that's not how we model it.
>
> I know and understand that, but from the outside, can you understand
> that given that many_to_many is discussed in
> DBIx::Class::Relationships its only natural to people arriv
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 02:36:51PM +0200, Moritz Onken wrote:
>
> Am 29.09.2008 um 17:50 schrieb Matt S Trout:
>
> >On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 05:56:11PM +0100, Oliver Gorwits wrote:
> >>Ideally, DBIC would instead populate the relationship_info details
> >>after someone has set up __PACKAGE__->many
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 02:39:00PM +0200, Zbigniew Lukasiak wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 2:20 PM, Matt S Trout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 09:28:50AM +0200, Zbigniew Lukasiak wrote:
> >> The tricky part is when you load data from the form into the new row.
> >> You ne
[CC-ed to the list in case mst or others care to weigh in.]
Eriam,
I was perusing RT and saw your bug report:
http://rt.cpan.org/Public/Bug/Display.html?id=21260
Storage::DBI::ODBC attempts to determine the backend database type and
reblesses to an appropriate class if one exists. If it cannot
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 07:01:49PM +0200, Zbigniew Lukasiak wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 6:49 PM, Matt S Trout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Ah. it appears I've cocked up has_manys.
> >
> > Could you re-send the test patch please?
>
> Here it is.
Thanks. Fixed now.
--
Matt S Trout
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Zbigniew Lukasiak wrote:
> For the time being the convention with special treatment for {pk
> => undef} is the only way that I can implement something covering
> all the possible cases.
I think that "special treatment" should set off alarm bells in yo
OK - so here is an improved reply.
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 2:39 PM, Zbigniew Lukasiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 2:20 PM, Matt S Trout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 09:28:50AM +0200, Zbigniew Lukasiak wrote:
>>> The tricky part is when you load dat
On Thu, 25 Sep 2008, Byron Young wrote:
If you pass a $preversion to ddl_filename(), it will update the filename with
s/$version/$pversion-$version/ after it constructs the full filename. If your
$dir happens to have something in it that matches $version, the directory will
be corrupted an
Here is a tiny patch for the might_have documentation, to add mention of
the cascade_update attribute.
The current wording sounds like you can turn off update cascading by
setting the cascade_delete attribute, which I don't think reflects the
code, when I quickly glance at DBIx::Class::Relationshi
I recently watched Matt's lightning talk:
http://yapc.tv/2008/ye/lt/lt1-12-trout-arent-good-enough/
I've got some code I haven't shared with the world, yet, so perhaps it's
time. It probably has bugs. :-)
So, for your comments, here's DBIx::Class::InflateColumn::FS. (Please
suggest a better nam
Shadowcat are looking to start offering training in Catalyst, DBIx::Class
and Moose usage, both introductory sessions and more advanced workshop-style
classes. The intended format would be two-day classes on site in Lancaster
(we'll either arrange accommodation or people can organise their own if
t
Hi,
On Sep 30, 2008, at 1:25 PM, Matt S Trout wrote:
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 05:39:25PM +0100, Pedro Melo wrote:
On Sep 29, 2008, at 4:50 PM, Matt S Trout wrote:
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 05:56:11PM +0100, Oliver Gorwits wrote:
Ideally, DBIC would instead populate the relationship_info details
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 2:20 PM, Matt S Trout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 09:28:50AM +0200, Zbigniew Lukasiak wrote:
>> The tricky part is when you load data from the form into the new row.
>> You need to delete the pk from it - because otherwise at
>> update_or_insert time
Am 29.09.2008 um 17:50 schrieb Matt S Trout:
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 05:56:11PM +0100, Oliver Gorwits wrote:
Ideally, DBIC would instead populate the relationship_info details
after someone has set up __PACKAGE__->many_to_many(...). That would
avoid this guesswork.
Why is there no ->is_many_
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 05:39:25PM +0100, Pedro Melo wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sep 29, 2008, at 4:50 PM, Matt S Trout wrote:
>
> >On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 05:56:11PM +0100, Oliver Gorwits wrote:
> >>Ideally, DBIC would instead populate the relationship_info details
> >>after someone has set up __PACKAGE
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 09:28:50AM +0200, Zbigniew Lukasiak wrote:
> The tricky part is when you load data from the form into the new row.
> You need to delete the pk from it - because otherwise at
> update_or_insert time it would issue an insert with pk = NULL - and
> this will fail in Pg (for exa
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 11:40 PM, Oliver Gorwits
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> Zbigniew Lukasiak wrote:
>> It works only with primary keys. And if you supply 'undef' in
>> the place of the auto_increment PK then it knows that this will
>> be a
17 matches
Mail list logo
