2012/9/5 Bruce
>
> Fabián,
>
> Thanks for taking the time to look at this. It took us all of today to
> recast the persistor class but it was well worth it as not only did we
> get rid of the specialised persistors but strangely it simplified some
> other aspects.
>
> You're welcome.
> Please
On Wed, 2012-09-05 at 12:00 +0200, Fabien Bodard wrote:
> For properties on the fly ... Why dont you use _get ?
Because, because ...
I never thought of using it that way.
... now I have some real thinking to do.
B
---
For properties on the fly ... Why dont you use _get ?
Le 5 sept. 2012 11:58, "Bruce" a écrit :
> On Tue, 2012-09-04 at 18:21 -0300, Fabián Flores Vadell wrote:
> > > What I'd like to be able to do is have only one of these, rather than
> > > 38.
> > >
> > > The reason that the metadata is held as
On Tue, 2012-09-04 at 18:21 -0300, Fabián Flores Vadell wrote:
> > What I'd like to be able to do is have only one of these, rather than
> > 38.
> >
> > The reason that the metadata is held as a static attribute is that
> > during any execution of a given program, there might be hundreds
> > (somet
Hi Bruce.
> The roadblock I have now struck is this. Each BO class requires a
> special "partner class" that contains the metadata as a static
> attribute. Each of these classes now looks exactly the same, same data
> items, same code. The only difference is the class name. Thus, 38
> different
Le 04/09/2012 08:13, Bruce a écrit :
> As usual this is hard to explain in a short message, but here goes.
>
> We have a major library that provides all the persistence mechanisms for
> what we call "Business Objects". In our case it's Horses, Stables,
> Auctions, Trainers, Owners, etc etc, curren
As usual this is hard to explain in a short message, but here goes.
We have a major library that provides all the persistence mechanisms for
what we call "Business Objects". In our case it's Horses, Stables,
Auctions, Trainers, Owners, etc etc, currently 38 of them and growing.
The reason for thi
