Peter Solnica
Peter Solnica
Thanks for reporting this!
@flash-gordon the idea is to be able to do it via class constant. Thoughts?
> @solnic type metadata will be missing, it can be a problem in some cases. For instance, you won't be able to notice column renaming @flash-gordon not sure if I...
@flash-gordon but it's already "linked" through `struct_namespace` and class name inference, isn't it?
@flash-gordon you're right. I guess we should stick to factories after all. @mereghost would you be OK with that? Please remember that `User` is only a placeholder class, the actual...
@mereghost no, you can ask for an in-memory struct via ie `Factory#structs[:user]`
@mereghost every rom-rb user must learn how auto-structs work though, so pretending that an abstract entity class is something that it's not would be confusing. We *can* make it nice...
@cllns this is one of my top priorities in rom 6.0. Struct implementation in rom is a pretty advanced piece TBH. I understand people's expectations because it shares attribute foundation...
@cllns this is actually *a really good idea*. To give you a quick explanation - the struct class you define by inheriting from `ROM::Struct` **is never instantiated**. ROM creates *sub-classes*...
I would prefer not to sacrifice ergonomics because of less common use cases, assuming we can support both. I think structs should be per container anyway. If you want shared...