Home » Database » DB_Table » Bug #2906

[2004-12-06 10:38 UTC] mquinton at gmail dot com

Description:
------------
hello,

I'm using Db_Table package for my own CMS. I have made a
subclasse for my local usage. I need to prefix table names.
So my subclass is like this :

class MyClass extends Db_Table{

var $prefix;

function table(){
return $this->prefix . $this->table;
}
}

but standard db_Table code is not usable directly. I need
to rewrite many methods ( insert, update, delete ...) or
modidify original source file like this :

class Db_Table {

var $table;

function insert($data)
{
...

# return $this->db->autoExecute($this->table, $data,
# MQ
return $this->db->autoExecute($this->table(), $data,
DB_AUTOQUERY_INSERT);
}

function table(){
return $this->table;
}
}

in that case, $table attribute access is overridable by subclasses.

could you take this in to account for next release ?

Reproduce code:
---------------
not a bug ...

[2004-12-20 20:32 UTC] mquinton at gmail dot com

here is an answer.

1 - the standard object form should be a call to a method, not directly to attribute,

2 - Yes, you have a good ideas, I did not thought about that, I can change constructor and manage a full table name. including prefix.

but some times, I need to know about prefix, and some times unprefixed values. I have some class using a special join statement without prefix like this :

$sql = array (
...
'insert' => array(
'join' => 'key:table:foreign_key(fields)'
)
...
);

in this statement, table should not be prefixed. This can be checked. So yes, I think, I will be able to go around in my class constructor.

But, really, I think your reply is not really very nice.

[2004-12-27 11:07 UTC] mquinton at gmail dot com

hello, I've done some checkings and now I can tell you,
I can use you DbTable class as is without need to change
any thing. I've rewriten buildSQL() method because this was
a need. And with this new method there is a work-around for
what I was asking to you.

thanks for your time.