Do most of you use Rose::HTML::Form to validate
user-supplied data before constructing RDBO your
RDBO objects?
Do you define the form constraints separately from
the RDBO model constraints? Or is there a way to
reuse one or the other?
Thanks,
Maurice
Jonathan Vanasco wrote:
> On Jul 9, 2007, at 7:46 PM, mla wrote:
>> Hmmm. You mean a nightmare to use? They seem really natural to me.
>> Many other ORMs seem to implement them.
>
> no a nightmare to implement.
>
> neither of those actually implement nested tran
Here's a first cut at a Rose::DB subclass that works
with DBIx::Transaction.
http://pastie.caboo.se/77582
You need to assign the db connection yourself.
Something like:
my $dbh = DBIx::Transaction->connect(...);
my $db = MyDB->new(driver => 'Pg') or die;
$db->dbh($dbh);
Maurice
Jonathan Vanasco wrote:
> On Jul 9, 2007, at 6:51 PM, mla wrote:
>> Is there any reason not to support nested transactions at the app
>> level? I find them very useful. Otherwise you have to make sure your
>> transactions are always at the top-level, which makes things mor
I saw the thread in late June about nested transactions and
John's response that:
"Nested transactions are not supported by RDBO. If a
database handle is already in a transaction, RDBO will
not start a new one, nor will it commit the existing one."
I think that's referring to actual nested trans
John Siracusa wrote:
> On 6/19/07 9:59 PM, mla wrote:
>> Cool. Can I help? Do you already have a general approach in mind?
>
> The first step is to make a decent SQL abstract abstraction made up of
> mutable objects which link back to the relevant bits of RDBO metadata. I'
John Siracusa wrote:
> On 6/19/07, mla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The features I'm interested in are:
>>
>>o Providing a somewhat consistent interface between these ad-hoc
>> result sets and normal RDBO objects.
>>
>>o Catching f
I'm interested in doing complex joins with RDBO but
without having to map the results to specific Rose::DB::Object
classes.
I found a discussion along these lines from '05.
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/catalyst/users/3095
excerpt:
"For funky SQL in the FROM clause or the column list,
John Siracusa wrote:
> On 6/14/07, Derek Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 1. A fatal error is thrown when the object count is zero. I believe
>> this is happening around line 2749 of MakeMethods::Generic:
>>
>> $count =
>> $ft_manager->$ft_count_method(query => [EMAIL PROTECTED], db =>
>>
John Siracusa wrote:
> On 6/7/07 3:04 AM, Cees Hek wrote:
>> On 6/7/07, Neal Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Also, I do not understand why Rose::DB goes to the trouble of getting
>>> tangled
>>> up in the serial sequence when a value 'DEFAULT' for the id to the statement
>>> handler would do
John Siracusa wrote:
> Does anyone have any good ideas for a namespace for module that augment or
> extend RDBO, but that are not part of the "official" RDBO distribution? The
> first thing that springs to my mind is:
>
> Rose::DBx::*
>
> That'd be for both modules that are related to Rose::
John Siracusa wrote:
> On 5/22/07 9:34 PM, mla wrote:
>> Is that the recommended way of doing this?
>
> Yep, you got it exactly right :)
Cool :-)
I noticed that omitting the override_existing does
not raise an exception; the redefinition is just
ignored.
Is that expected? I
Hi, folks. I'm very new to RDBO.
I want all Rose::DB::Object-derived classes to
default_update_changes_only set to true by default.
Here's what I've done. It's working, but tell me if
this is the recommended way.
First I created three project base classes, each
inheriting from the associated Ros
13 matches
Mail list logo
