I guess I'd prefer to at least have the ability to do explicit
mapping, like the modeler currently supports for single-table.
What you're suggesting could work, but we have at least one very deep
and wide inheritance tree in our current app, and the performance hit
of joining more than a hundred tables (so far) unnecessarily would
kill us.
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 8:00 AM, Andrus Adamchik <andru..bjectstyle.org> wrote:
>
> On May 31, 2010, at 7:48 AM, Mike Kienenberger wrote:
>
>> I didn't completely understand the question, so I'm not sure if this
>> answers it.
>
> I guess the question was whether we want this in Cayenne mapping in some
> form:
>
> ..nheritance(strategy = InheritanceType.JOINED)
>
> or guess the strategy from other mapping clues (the later is our current
> approach). It was more of a discussion item on what are the benefits of
> either approach.
>
>>..iscriminatorColumn(name="object_type")
>
> Actually my plan is to use OUTER joins in Cayenne SELECT queries, so entity
> type will be determined from the presence of the non-null joined ID column
> in the result set and explicit discriminator ("entity qualifier expression"
> in Cayenne terms) won't be needed.
>
> Andrus
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Mon May 31 2010 - 12:18:34 UTC