[Dbix-class] RFC: DBIx-Class-Tree

[Matt S Trout]

Dave Howorth wrote:
> Aran Deltac wrote:
>>> attach_child - DBIC follows the CDBI convention of add_to_*. So why not
>>> call this method add_to_children? The description could also be clearer.
>> Because Matt asked me to follow the DOM naming conventions, which I think
>> I have to the best of my ability.  Some of the method names I've chosen
>> are not directly from the DOM methods, but are heavly influenced by them.
> 
> Urgh, IMHO :) What's special about the DOM that it deserves such 
> respect? And worth breaking internal consistency for? It would be nice 
> to have a mention in the docs to explain the apparent inconsistency 
> (ideally to the source of the names, because I haven't been able to find 
> a fair few with a bit of googling).

Well, I suggested it because I didn't have a better idea - and the DOM is 
probably the single best-known tree API. Doesn't mean we can't come up with 
something better - anybody want to sketch out a better set of names for the 
methods?

>> Its in the Ordered component.  Any method that exist in
>> Tree::AdjacencyList or Ordered components is not shown in
>> Tree::AdjacencyList::Ordered component.  I've added a section listing
>> the methods that are made available via these other two components.  You
>> would still need to read the related component's POD for detailed docs
>> on the methods.
> 
> I appreciate this dilemma. As the reader in this instance, I can just 
> point out that this policy makes it more difficult to use the module. If 
> I were the maintainer, I might well have a different opinion :)

Which brings us back to a regular problem with DBIC's lots-of-components 
nature. I think what we really need is a magic script to assemble to bits of 
POD from other modules into one that uses them in a way that doesn't get in 
the way of the maintainer.

>> A DAG is a bit of a different beast than a Tree, but I'll keep it in
>> mind.  Sounds like a deffinate possibility.
> 
> Well, a tree is a special case of a DAG, so an interface that can handle 
> DAGs can handle trees, but not necessarily vice versa.

 From a user's point of view a tree is just a DAG constrained to a single 
parent, right?

-- 
      Matt S Trout       Offering custom development, consultancy and support
   Technical Director    contracts for Catalyst, DBIx::Class and BAST. Contact
Shadowcat Systems Ltd.  mst (at) shadowcatsystems.co.uk for more information

+ Help us build a better perl ORM: http://dbix-class.shadowcatsystems.co.uk/ +