Re: tablename/guid vs. classname/guid
Torben Nehmer <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.web.midgard.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi, - --Piotras wrote on 2006-02-07 17:09: >> >> What do you want with that in the repligard table? >> > >> > I just wanted to check if you have fresh 1.7 branch db installed or old one >> > updated ;) Since 1.8 we will follow "class name & (gu)id" pair instead of >> > "table & id". Nohing should be changed on higher levels as all will be done >> > transparently in core. >> >> What do you do if you have more then one type declared for the same table (like >> openpsa does) >> >> IMHO, and I have outlined this more then once, guids should be db object-wise, >> completly regardless of actual type names. Reasons are the same as ever. >> >> Can you give me your reasoning for the class-name strategy please? > > Class name means type name defined in schema. Can you give me your reasoning for the class/type-name strategy please? Live long and Prosper! Torben Nehmer - -- Torben Nehmer, Guenzburg, Bavaria, Germany http://www.nathan-syntronics.de, mailto:[email protected] PGP Public Key: https://www.link-m.de/pgp/t.nehmer.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFD6MgMJPh4Kn6d5FYRAprXAJ4u5cHQOxhFlEru71X6S0wLvtDgWgCg4Nmr sd+fNPJqXzCndzEMoB/gEMA= =yhyH -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----