Hi Eli, I really want to stay as far away from the kind of magic that is giving database abstactions a bad name. So I don't really think *db-auto-sync* is a feature that fits in Postmodern.
Doesn't looping over the slots in your class, and defining :after methods on their setters, solve this without touching the Postmodern internals? It'll probably be awkward, as any MOP-based method definition is bound to be, but I believe it should be possible. Best, Marijn On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 5:11 PM, Eli Naeher <enae...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, > > I'm in the process of converting an existing application from CLSQL to > Postmodern. This application makes heavy use of CLSQL's *db-auto-sync* > feature, whereby new instances of view (DAO) classes are immediately > inserted into the DB table, and changes to view class instance slots result > in immediate updates. > > While I like the explicit approach of save-dao/update-dao/etc., there is > just too much code in this application that relies on the auto-sync behavior > to adopt that approach in the immediate term. > > So, a few questions: > > - would a *db-auto-sync*-like feature be accepted if I were to submit a pull > request, or are there philosophical objections to having this feature in > mainline Postmodern? > > - if this feature is not desired, would you be willing to accept a few > patches that would make it easier for me to build this feature as a separate > third-party library? Specifically, I'm thinking of something like CLSQL's > *db-deserializing* flag, which would indicate to my code when it is being > called by a dao-row-reader (and thus should not propagate slot value changes > to the database) vs when it is being called by user code. > > Thank you, > -Eli
