[Dbix-class] "Alias" schema option

[Matt S Trout]

Christopher H. Laco wrote:
>> So, the question now becomes, what does everything think?
>>
>> Should we leave ->name alone, and make something new like
>> result_source_name(), or do we forge ahead with changing the meaning of
>> what ->name() returns?
>>
>> -=Chris
>>
> 
> The more I think about this, the more I don't like it.
> I think adding table_name, and having from() return table_name is a good
> thing. But I think name should just return what it always has.
> 
> name() can mean different things to different modules, in different
> parts of the dist.  I'd personally much rather see source_name(). That's
> a little more clear IMHO on what it will return.

Mmm, I can see that one. Plus it means the same source can exist in more than 
one schema with a different name in the scheme but the same ->name.

Not sure source_name is quite right though. schema_name suggests the name of 
the schema, name_in_schema sucks. Er. Ideas, anybody?

-- 
      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/ +