Re: [SQLObject] Suggestion: Alternate names for RelatedJoin and MultipleJoin

[Ian B. <ia...@co...>]

Robin Munn wrote:
> Pop quiz: You want a many-to-many relation in your SQLObject database.
> Quick, do you use a RelatedJoin or a MultipleJoin?
> If you're like me, you probably had to stop and think about that one
 >
> for a second. You may have even had to go look it up in the
> documentation to make sure you'd answered correctly. This, to me, is a
> clue that the names could be better.

I agree; I was planning on renaming as you suggest them when refactoring 
the join objects, which will simultaneously make them simpler (mostly 
into normal descriptor objects).  And probably ManyToManyJoin will be 
SQLRelatedJoin, not RelatedJoin, because SQLRelatedJoin is nicer.  Well, 
"act like" SQLRelatedJoin, because the refactoring will get rid of all 
those annoying options.

-- 
Ian Bicking  /  ia...@co...  /  http://blog.ianbicking.org