Re: [pear-webmaster] Object oriented design for the backend

Hi Martin: On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 07:18:03PM +0200, Martin Jansen wrote: > > http://divbyzero.net/junk/pearweb-uml.gif Here's my cursory review. user ---- How about adding timezone and pronunciation columns. package ------- Why have the deprecated bool column when that status can be obtained from the deprecated_since column containing a value? category -------- Should an info() method be included? maintainer ---------- Needs fields In general... I'd encourage column names for a given key be the same in all tables for ease of comprehension and joining. For example, package.id joins to maintains.package. Ideally, the column would be named "packageid" in both tables. Performance can be enhanced a smidgen in the following ways: * have as many tables as possible use only fixed width columns (char instead of varchar) * using DEFAULT <value> NOT NULL in most cases. Regarding DataObjects, I haven't used it, so I can't fully say. But, from my naive impressions of it, the notion of abstracting the schema and having things automatically done makes me uncomfortable. I like writing SQL straight out. So, I guess it depends on how far you're thinking of abstracting the thing. The idea of putting the database interactions into methods such as add(), remove(), etc, that makes sense to me. But that's already being done. Can you elaborate a little bit on what you're thinking? I guess the real question is, what are the problems with the current database schema and classes and the goals of the improvements? --Dan -- T H E A N A L Y S I S A N D S O L U T I O N S C O M P A N Y data intensive web and database programming http://www.AnalysisAndSolutions.com/ 4015 7th Ave #4, Brooklyn NY 11232 v: 718-854-0335 f: 718-854-0409