On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 3:53 AM, Andrus Adamchik <andru..bjectstyle.org> wrote:
>
> Now back to 3.0... Could you explain why there is a mismatch in the mapping?
> I.e. why can't you remap (A -> C ; C -> B) as either (A -> C ; C -> A) or (B
> -> C ; C -> B) from the application design perspective?
I don't think this was my case, but the reason I mapped the way I did
is that 11 out of 12 columns were in common between several classes,
so I used STI. I mapped the relationship for the one subclass that
needed it because it was the only one that needed it. While I could
have mapped it at the superclass level, all other siblings would then
have the method, which would be logically invalid. Additionally, I
couldn't reasonably enforce a mandatory constraint.
At the time I also looked into having Cayenne not create runtime
relationships that it didn't need to . . . after all, this one is
mapped. But I ran into much larger obstacles when doing that, so I
decided to try to figure out how to work with them.
-- Kevin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Wed Feb 10 2010 - 07:45:25 EST