in reply to Re^2: abstraction -- level up!
in thread abstraction -- level up!

But why would you have to? Just pass in the SQL and the selected id: 

sub make_select {
   my ($dbh, $sql, $args, $id) = @_;
   my $items = $dbh->selectall_arrayref($sql, {Slice => {}}, $args);

   for ($items) {
      $_->{selected} = 1 if $_->{id} == $id;
   }

   return $items;
}

[download]

jeffa

L-LL-L--L-LL-L--L-LL-L--
-R--R-RR-R--R-RR-R--R-RR
B--B--B--B--B--B--B--B--
H---H---H---H---H---H---
(the triplet paradiddle with high-hat)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: abstraction -- level up!
by geektron (Curate) on Jun 16, 2004 at 23:07 UTC
    well, i guess a function more like this ... passing SQL into it, would do the trick. (along with the name of the possible selected value, since in some cases it's ID, others it's NAME, etc )

    something in me just says that passing around SQL is a bad idea. i don't know why... it's a gut feeling about later maintainability.

[reply]

      I find that this is a Very Good Idea™! Why are you so sceptical? :)

      Passing the SQL around is no more or less maintainable than passing the resulting data structure around. There may be better ways ... but no way is really good unless you plan and design it ahead of time. FWIW, i think using Maypole is the real Very Good Idea™.

      And yes, passing the name of the possible selected value might be a good idea ... but if you always rely on a primary key and you always call it the same (such as simply id), then you circumvent that problem. Also, if you have the id, then there is no reason to use another value for the value of your select box. Another lable, yes, but not another value. Use the id! Finally, choosing a naming scheme that allows you to program smart and conveniently is very beneficial -- allowing you to write generic and simple subroutines. Of course, if this is for EVERYONE to use, then yes ... you need to add the ability to customize it.

      jeffa

      L-LL-L--L-LL-L--L-LL-L--
-R--R-RR-R--R-RR-R--R-RR
B--B--B--B--B--B--B--B--
H---H---H---H---H---H---
(the triplet paradiddle with high-hat)
[reply]
        And yes, passing the name of the possible selected value might be a good idea ... but if you always rely on a primary key and you always call it the same (such as simply id), then you circumvent that problem.

        well, that's part of the issue. the database is inconsistent, and without spending a week trying to graft a better solution onto a third-party datasource *and* a 'legacy' MySQL system, i'm stuck passing the key field name.

        and i don't know why i disagree with passing SQL statements around ... it just ... i dunno ... seems to me like it starts to turn into an unmaintainable spaghetti monster. sure, i'll be able to debug it tomorrow, but what about the next guy, or even me 6 months from now ( w/out looking at the code, i might as well be 'that new guy' ).

[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom