On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 11:13:19AM -0500, Seth Gordon wrote:
> The database schema does not have Maypole-friendly field names: e.g.,
> the primary key of the "authors" table is "author_id", not "id".
I think I'm missing something here. There seems to be this idea that
Maypole (and / or Class::DBI) wants the primary key to be called 'id'.
Is this actually true? It certainly isn't true for Class::DBI.
> in my experience, the person writing the front end of a database-backed
> Web application often does not have any control over the schema used for
> the database. Given that fact, this argument over how tables and fields
> *should* be named seems kind of beside the point.
Maybe I'm missing the point here, but I thought one of the goals of
Maypole was that you can have whatever schema you want, but, if you have
things set up in a certain way, you can skip some of the setup stages,
as Maypole will guess what you want. Other than this guessing, which
you can override if it gets it wrong, Maypole certainly shouldn't care
about your schema.
But maybe I misunderstand; or maybe something has changed. But it seems
to me that because there's a lot of discussion about abstract theory on
what the /best/ way of doing something is, that people are picking up
that that's the /only/ way Maypole can work. Or something.
Tony
_______________________________________________
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 - 22:25:58 GMT