On May 30, 2007, at 8:04 AM, Lachlan Deck wrote:
> I'm not familiar with the embeddable discussion but this is the
> idea of DbEntity interfaces:
> a) you have a series of DbEntities that are not inherited in any
> way but for which you want them to conform to an interface 'A'.
> They are explicitly tied to that interface (rather than having to
> synchronise to it). i.e., the attributes/relations appear as they
> do for inherited characteristics. i.e., they're defined once per
> model and implemented by various other DbEntities.
>
> b) an ObjEntity interface 'a' may optionally map to a DbEntity
> interface 'b'. Any ObjEntity 'c' that maps to a DbEntity that
> implements 'b' will be shown to implicitly implement the associated
> ObjEntity 'a'.
>
> c) then there are the ObjEntity interfaces that have no associated
> DbEntity interface...
Hi Lachlan,
What I am concerned about with DbEntity interfaces is that DbEntities
model database tables and there is no interface concept in DB world.
So I still don't understand why we need DbEntity inheritance? Could
you please elaborate or give some examples?
The only use I can see for it is a *coincidental* match between
groups of attributes in multiple tables. So is it worth complicating
the mapping by introducing a concept with no analog in the DB world?
My suspicion is that it will be very hard to explain to the users.
Andrus
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Wed May 30 2007 - 05:19:08 EDT