Dave Howorth wrote:
> Simon Flack wrote:
>
>> Yes, I like that. One issue is that the table2class() differs from
>> Class::DBI::Loader. E.g.
>
>
> I prefer AutoLoader's rule, but I guess one issue might be backwards
> compatibility.
>
>> table: hello-world
>> CDBI::AutoLoader: HelloWorld
>> CDBI::Loader: Hello-world # this is an invalid package name
>
>
> So there's no backwards-compatibility issue there then :)
>
>> table: hello__world
>> CDBI::AutoLoader: HelloWorld
>> CDBI::Loader: Hello_World
>
>
> That will either work, if the user hasn't actually written any code for
> the table class, or it will cause a compile error that's easy to fix in
> the more usual case that there is code for an untaint or a relationship
> or something.
>
> The most worrying case I can think of is if somebody has one table
> called hello__world and another called hello_world. But then I think
> they deserve everything that happens to them :) And something would
> probably break.
>
> The other issue will be Class::DBI::Loader::Relationship.
That's a tricky one. I think our best bet is proposing a patch to
Class::DBI::Loader.
--simonflk
_______________________________________________
maypole mailing list
maypole at lists.netthink.co.uk
http://lists.netthink.co.uk/listinfo/maypole
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Thu Feb 24 2005 - 22:25:57 GMT