On 3/29/08 4:22 PM, "Andrus Adamchik" <andru..bjectstyle.org> wrote:
>
> On Mar 29, 2008, at 9:25 PM, Kevin Menard wrote:
>> Likewise, there may be a reason a user is mapping multiple
>> relationships,
>> and in that case, I'd call the term "redundant" pejorative.
>
> Ok, let's call them "overlapping" or something else. The important
> thing is what that means: there are two or more overlapping
> collections based on the same join condition. And this is a curse for
> object graph consistency. Users should create their own filter on top
> of a single most inclusive collection and stop mapping the overlapping
> ones ... or risk messed up object graph right away. I'd say this
> should be a warning in the modeler.
Sounds good. The modeler probably shouldn't auto-generate overlapping
relationships either.
> Ok, maybe to reduce the number of cases we need to analyze, why don't
> we stop this discussion, and work on reducing the number of runtime
> relationships created (hmm... I only see a single case: a to-many part
> of a 1..N), then see what harm is caused by the remaining ones.
Largely, that's what I was shooting for by CAY-1008 and CAY-1009. In the
process though, I think I've confounded the situation a bit. I do like the
approach though.
>
>> If we want to go down the path of allowing multiple reverse
>> relationships, I
>> can lead the work up. I don't want you to think I'm trying to shell
>> this
>> off on you. I just don't want to be making large architectural
>> changes
>> without someone else keeping me in check.
>
> Yes, in order for us to keep consistent architecture, I feel like I'd
> have to be involved anyways. I don't think it is good for anybody if
> we have a set of diverging architectural visions in one product.
> Sounding like a control freak, but I don't see any other way around.
That's fine with me. I've just always been of the mindset that if I want
something, I should step up to the plate. Clearly, though, you understand
the architecture better than anyone else. Realizing that this likely wasn't
a priority for you but is for me, do you want to come up with some sort of
mini-roadmap? I was thinking of soliciting one from the list anyway so that
we have an idea of when to release 3.0 M4.
-- Kevin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Sat Mar 29 2008 - 18:26:43 EDT