Re: [CDBI] Many-to-many relationships of same type?

On 6/20/07, Ciaran Hamilton <[email protected]> wrote:
> Eeeep. I'm sorry, I didn't notice that the original reply was
> off-list. I just assumed (correctly in this case, but not that it
> mattered for that reply) that the list was one which didn't mangle
> reply-tos, and that it was sent to the list, and that my reply just
> hadn't CCed it to the list. Also, since I use GMail's interface (which
> groups messages into 'conversations'), it takes more effort to tell my
> subconscious when a reply is off-list. I can tell I'm going to have to
> be extra careful with this list, eep.

I would hate to think that people feel the need to be careful about
sending messages to this list...  Especially new users!  Yes, there
was a meltdown on the list about a year or so ago, and Matt had his
part in that (hence the reason for him treading lightly).  And
although it caused some headaches for many of us, some good things
have come from it as well.

We now have DBIx::Class which is said to be a very good piece of work
(I don't use it myself, although I hear good things).  Also, it shone
the spotlight on other projects like Rose::DB::Object which is also an
excellent piece of work (it is the one I use most often these days).
And in the end, it has sparked new development and many new
improvements in Class::DBI itself (I still use Class::DBI in many of
my projects as well).

So please feel free to ask away if you have any questions.  If you
just want to know about the differences between the different ORMs in
perl, then search the list archives and/or use google, because there
have been lots of good discussions.  Then if you still have questions,
ask away!

Cheers,

Cees