On Mar 28, 2008, at 2:01 PM, Kevin Menard wrote:
> Taking it a step further, I don't think we actually had agreed how
> to fix
> CAY-1008. As you've probably seen, it's a tricky one because changing
> getReverseRelationship is not all that feasible.
>
> One such "fix" is to disallow explicit mappings to base and sub
> classes and
> replace it with some other mechanism.
*simultaneous* mapping that is
> In this case, I would argue that the test case for
> CAY-1008 has such an invalid mapping, but that the mapping for the
> CAY-1009
> test case does not match the criteria.
Without runtime relationships in the picture this relationship loop is
"non-redundant" I guess:
BaseEntity -> DirectToSubEntity -> SubEntity
This brings me to a potential runtime relationships optimization -
avoid creation of runtime relationships that are not needed to set a
correct FK (e.g. in a Artist -> Paintings case, toArtist is a required
runtime relationship to set PAINTING.ARTIST_ID, while "paintingArray"
is not). So we can probably narrow down the field to just the
necessary runtime rels.
Question... Once we do that, would that mean that we only solved 50%
of the broken cases? Mapping cases showing remaining problems are
welcomed.
Andrus
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Fri Mar 28 2008 - 08:48:24 EDT