[RFC] Buildtime object model

[fzaninotto]

The classes under the Generator/Model/ directory help to model the relational schema. The problem is that at buildtime, there is no model of the object-oriented domain. The code necessary to generate ActiveRecord, TableMap, RelationMap, is all inside Relational classdes - or worse, builder classes.

I suggest that we introduce an object-oriented view of the model at buildtime - something like the runtime Map classes, but more intelligent - and to make these classes the primary data for PHP builders. SQL builders can keep using relational models, but PHP builders need a central place where they can look for a reference of the Object model.

[hhamon]

Can we create a new Propel\Mapping namespace containing classes that allow to map the model for Buildtime and Runtime?

[fzaninotto]

@hhamon: No thrilled about this idea. The buildtime model must be very detailed, the runtime model must be very fast. These need to be different classes.

[hhamon]

Ok I didn't know there were so much differences between the two models ;)

[willdurand]

Ok, I'm fine with that.

Will we duplicate information or it's really different ? Except granularity, I'm not sure information are so different. I agree the need to have different classes but we may introduce the Propel\Common top-level namespace to avoidduplicating stuffs. It's just a suggestion, I didn't exactly know information you want in the generator.

Or maybe I didn't get your sentence "something like the runtime Map classes, but more intelligent".

I'm fine with that anyway, it will be a first step in the refactoring of builders.

[fzaninotto]

Let's bootstrap these classes for the builder needs, to see what's needed
inside. For the most part, these classes will use the relational model to
give back information, but presented in an OO way. For instance, in a
Record class, there will be a getOneToManyRelationships() method
returning Relation objects, based on the FKeys of the underlying tables.

2011/11/10 William DURAND <
[email protected]>

Ok, I'm fine with that.

Will we duplicate information or it's really different ? Except
granularity, I'm not sure information are so different. I agree the need to
have different classes but we may introduce the Propel\Common top-level
namespace to avoidduplicating stuffs. It's just a suggestion, I didn't
exactly know information you want in the generator.

Or maybe I didn't get your sentence "something like the runtime Map
classes, but more intelligent".

I'm fine with that anyway, it will be a first step in the refactoring of
builders.

---

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#42 (comment)

[willdurand]

Yeah, totally needed.

[dereuromark]

I will close these stale and old tickets.
We can open new ones as per needs, but they are just collecting dust here.