Added composite primary key support to JTable.

[ianmacl]

No description provided.

[LouisLandry]

Would you mind double checking the code style on this? The pull tester shows 2 more issues than most other ones, and I'd like to be sure. Marked it for 12.3 regardless. I'd also like to leave it open for a few days in case others want to comment.

[ianmacl]

I used underscores on protected variables to avoid colliding with columns in the table.

[eddieajau]

Should key be mixed?

[ianmacl]

You are right @eddieajau. I have changed it to mixed.

[LouisLandry]

Any particular reason you are dropping the type hinting here?

[ianmacl]

To save disk space. :P

[mahagr]

Nice -- but as we are on it, I would like to allow one more use case, which is using "foreign key" as a primary key. For example UCM could be implemented by extending a table with another table using the same key.

I would also make a small feature to allow table to know if item already exists in the table. We have implementation of this feature in Kunena and it would be really easy to add into here, too. Basically you need to add:

protected $_exists = false;

public function exists($exists = null)
{
    $return = $this->_exists;
    if ($exists !== null)
    {
        $this->_exists = $exists;
    }
    return $return;
}

.. and some logic to set the variable when the item gets loaded, saved or removed.

https://github.com/Kunena/Kunena-2.0/blob/master/administrator/components/com_kunena/libraries/tables/kunena.php

Above code also prevents extra lookup to the database if the item was fetched earlier. If you want to handle both, I would set $_exists = null at first and use true/false when you want to know the status of the object (also change the code to make SQL query if state is unknown).

[ianmacl]

@mahagr Those are good ideas and definitely worth exploring. I'd like to get things in as is first and then we can build on it. I think what is there provides a good foundation that we can build on.

[ianmacl]

Rebased, squashed and fixed doc block issues.

[ianmacl]

@mahagr I hope you follow up with a pull request with some of the ideas that you had.

[mahagr]

@ianmacl Our house is currently under repair (water pipes...), which unfortunately has a small distracting effect on everything I (try to) do.

Are you coming to world conference?

[rashidul0405]

doesn't included with Joomla 2.5.7 👎

[drmmr763]

@rashidul04 this is the platform, so the CMS may or may not implement the platform changes back to the CMS. If they do, it usually takes longer, and will not make it into the 2.5.x series.

[pasamio]

It'll be in Platform 12.3's release which will likely be picked up with the Joomla CMS 3.1 release. You can ship it and load it yourself with 2.5/3.0 and just give it another name so that it doesn't conflict.

[mbabker]

Unfortunately, it looks like there was an unintended regression here dealing with the asset handling in JTable::store(). It looks like the problem can be chased down to https://github.com/joomla/joomla-platform/blob/staging/libraries/joomla/table/table.php#L719 where the $this->_tbl_key was changed to $this->_tbl_keys since JDatabaseDriver::insertObject() expects that param to be a string, not an array. This causes the ID (or whatever the key(s) may be) of the newly inserted record to not be stored in the JTable instance, meaning when $this->_getAssetName(); is called a few lines later, the last part of the name is .0 instead of the value of the key.