On 5/10/06 9:57 PM, Jesse Brown wrote:
> If you would like me to implement, just point me to the
> place the add_ code is defined and I'll send you a patch :)
Thanks, but it's a simple change. I'll do it myself when I make a decision.
As always, policy is more trouble than implementation.
-John
On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 08:38:10PM -0400, John Siracusa wrote:
> On 5/10/06 6:03 PM, Jesse Brown wrote:
> > Re: the scalar context return value - IS it available elsewhere? (the number
> > of items added in that call) - total number of items, yes, but new ones?
>
> Yeah, because you're making the
On 5/10/06 7:20 PM, LU, ZHENYUAN [AG/1000] wrote:
> I am using Oracle.
Unfortunately, Rose::DB does not yet support Oracle. What you're using is
the "generic" interface that Rose::DB falls back to when it encounters an
unknown database.
Ron Savage is working on adding Oracle support to Rose::DB
On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 05:39:33PM -0400, John Siracusa wrote:
> On 5/10/06, Jesse Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I guess the question I should ask is: Why NOT return the newly created
> >objects?
>
> I just like to know the reasoning before I change the API :) The code
> examples are exact
On 5/10/06 6:03 PM, Jesse Brown wrote:
> Re: the scalar context return value - IS it available elsewhere? (the number
> of items added in that call) - total number of items, yes, but new ones?
Yeah, because you're making the call! :) Example:
$o->add_widgets(@widgets); # $count = @widgets
Title: list_tables in Oracle
I am using Oracle. The list_tables in Rose::DB is not working for me in my script.
I found that 2 parts of list_tables sub caused problem.
$dbh->table_info($self->catalog, $self->schema, '', $types); is not working.
$dbh->table_info($self->catalog, $self->schema
On 5/10/06, Jesse Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I guess the question I should ask is: Why NOT return the newly created
objects?
I just like to know the reasoning before I change the API :) The code
examples are exactly what I was looking for, thanks. The only thing I
remain unsure of is t
> use Template;
> my $template = Template->new( name => 'blah blah!' );
Be careful, there is a CPAN module named Template (Template Toolkit). If
you have it installed, you can get problems.
To avoid this use a prefix (like Postini::Template or such).
Bye, Uwe
-
Primarily to populate other relationships. So, for instance.
I have a two classes called 'Template' and 'Template::Version'.
Template has a one to many relationship with Template::Version
(Template::Version has a foreign key into Template),
as well as a many to one relationship with Template::Ver
On 5/10/06, Jesse Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
When adding objects to a relationship via $object->add_({ blah
=> 1, etc}), I seem unable to get back the list of objects that were created
and added to the relationship, which seems like it would be VERY convenient?
It also seems that the behav
Heya! I've been working on RoseDB for awhile now, and ran across something that
seemed a bit odd.
When adding objects to a relationship via $object->add_({ blah =>
1, etc}), I seem unable to get back the list of objects that were created and
added to the relationship, which seems like it would
(I think this bounced the first two times...apologies if it's a triple!)
On 5/10/06, Uwe Voelker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Between "swap" and "exchange" I would prefer "exchange" too. But maybe
> "replace"?
Yeah, I like that better too. Of course, it occurs to me now that you
can already just
i like replace too. i think dealing with columns is far enough away that it wont be ambiguous with the replace that deals with rowsOn 5/10/06, Uwe Voelker
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> "Change" sounds like it alters the existing column in-place. How about
> swap_column() or exchange_column() instea
> "Change" sounds like it alters the existing column in-place. How about
> swap_column() or exchange_column() instead? I think I like "exchange" best.
Between "swap" and "exchange" I would prefer "exchange" too. But maybe
"replace"?
Generally I think this has a low priority, it was just an idea
On 5/10/06 3:31 AM, Uwe Voelker wrote:
> from the documentation about inheritance:
>
> # Change the "start" column into a datetime column.
> __PACKAGE__->meta->delete_column('start');
> __PACKAGE__->meta->add_column(start => { type => 'datetime' });
>
> Why not add a method change_column()
On 5/10/06 3:20 AM, Uwe Voelker wrote:
> initilzed -> initialized
Fixed, thanks.
-John
---
Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easie
Hello,
from the documentation about inheritance:
# Change the "start" column into a datetime column.
__PACKAGE__->meta->delete_column('start');
__PACKAGE__->meta->add_column(start => { type => 'datetime' });
Why not add a method change_column() (and change_columns()) which
combines the two
initilzed -> initialized
Index: Rose-DB-Object/lib/Rose/DB/Object.pm
===
--- Rose-DB-Object/lib/Rose/DB/Object.pm(Revision 702)
+++ Rose-DB-Object/lib/Rose/DB/Object.pm(Arbeitskopie)
@@ -1546,7 +1546,7 @@
B When usin
18 matches
Mail list logo
