On 6/3/07 9:11 PM, Jonathan Vanasco wrote:
> add_unique_keys seems weird too...
>
> by the name alone, one would expect
>
> add_unique_key( $uk );
> add_unique_keys( $uk1, $uk2 );
That should work fine, provided $uk1 and $uk1 are
Rose::DB::Object::Metadata::UniqueKey objects.
> suffice to say,
sorry this took so long to respond -- been too busy on the business
side of work, little time for code.
On May 18, 2007, at 2:21 PM, John Siracusa wrote:
> I think it's pretty clear given that the table definition is right
> above it, and contains:
>
> UNIQUE(product_id, region)
ok. th
On 5/20/07 10:02 AM, Adrian Howard wrote:
> On 20 May 2007, at 00:15, John Siracusa wrote:
>> The quick-start guide I envision [...]
>
> That sounds excellent :-) Thank you.
Don't thank me for envisioning it; save it for when I actually get around to
writing it ;)
-John
--
On 20 May 2007, at 00:15, John Siracusa wrote:
[snip]
> The quick-start guide I envision has very little explanation, just
> "here's a
> database schema, here's how to wrap it with the loader and
> manually, and
> here's how to use the resulting classes to do stuff." It'd be for
> people in
John,
> The only tricky
> part would be how and where to link to the reference docs (or the tutorial,
> I supposed).
Errr, the academic world has had appendices and bibliography for years
if not centuries :)
DSL
-
This S
On 5/19/07 1:01 PM, Adrian Howard wrote:
> A quick start along the lines of "Here's a database schema. Here's
> RDBO::Loader.. Bish bosh. Job done. Oh yes, when you need some more
> flexibility, better validation, etc. here's where to look" would be
> nice.
The quick-start guide I envision has ver
On 18 May 2007, at 21:41, Ask Bjørn Hansen wrote:
[snip]
> Since nobody else agreed with Marvin, I'd add my two cents that I do
> think it'd be nice if the tutorial jumped "straight to the
> meat" (says the vegetarian...). When I started looking at RDBO I at
> least subconsciously found it intimi
On May 18, 2007, at 9:00 AM, John Siracusa wrote:
> Since those sections are clearly labeled and there are links to all
> the major sections (in the HTML version of the POD, that is), I don't
> think it's too onerous for those people that want to skip them to do
> so.
Since nobody else agreed wi
On 5/18/07, Derek Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> It's on the list, but not at the top just yet. (Even just collecting
>> and editing recipes takes time.) If someone else wants to head this
>> up, let me know.
>
> Is there a Wiki installed somewhere we can start working on in an
> ad-hoc fas
>
> It's on the list, but not at the top just yet. (Even just collecting
> and editing recipes takes time.) If someone else wants to head this
> up, let me know.
Is there a Wiki installed somewhere we can start working on in an
ad-hoc fashion?
---
On 5/18/07, Jonathan Vanasco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John- Maybe you could do a callout for recipes, and then cull the
> best into it?
It's on the list, but not at the top just yet. (Even just collecting
and editing recipes takes time.) If someone else wants to head this
up, let me know.
>
> Sure, but since the tutorial is the only piece of non-reference
> documentation, I tried to spell out as much as I could. Obviously,
> one document can't satisfy everyone. (I've also had people tell me the
> tutorial is too terse and needs to be expanded! :) I think there's a
> place for a qui
I'm actually a big fan of the docs the way that they are, and a bit of a
"gentle" introduction is a nice departure from the extreme "brevity" of most
open source docs. I certainly didn't find that the few paragraphs of
introduction interferred with my ability to absorb the material in any
way!
If
On 5/18/07, Marvin Humphrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On May 18, 2007, at 9:00 AM, John Siracusa wrote:
>> Since those sections are clearly labeled and there are links to all
>> the major sections (in the HTML version of the POD, that is), I don't
>> think it's too onerous for those people that
On May 18, 2007, at 9:00 AM, John Siracusa wrote:
> Since those sections are clearly labeled and there are links to all
> the major sections (in the HTML version of the POD, that is), I don't
> think it's too onerous for those people that want to skip them to do
> so.
Skip the "introduction"? Y
On 5/18/07, Marvin Humphrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I suggest that the "conventions" material be cleared from its current
> position. Moving it to a footnote, to a separate document a la
> references to the "Rose Development Policy", or perhaps even omitting
> it entirely would allow the subs
Greets,
I've been tasked with learning Rose, so this is my one chance to
approach the documentation naively. My first impression is that it
seems admirably thorough but encumbered by well-meaning excess in
places.
Much of the documentation begins with scene-setting. For instance,
Rose::
17 matches
Mail list logo
