Am I correct in understanding that if object b extends object a, and object a
defines a mapping to object object c, then there should /not/ be an
obj-relationship mapping in the map.xml file for object b to object c, right?
Put in a more concrete example (pseudo-code and pseudo-xml follows :)...
class _vehicle {
public List getOilChangeList() {
....
}
}
class _car extends vehicle {
//inherits getOilChangeList...
}
then, in the map.xml file, there should be a /single/ obj-relationship tag,
<obj-relationship name="oilChangeList" source="vehicle" target="..."
db-relationship="..."/>
Right? There should NOT be a second mapping, like...
<obj-relationship name="oilChangeList" source="car" target="..."
db-relationship="..."/>
Correct?
I ask because today, in doing a bunch of refactoring, I suddenly ran into issues
where one to many relationships were borked. Looking at the .xml file, and
comparing it with the map.xml file of another mapping wherein the one-to-many
relationships work fine revealed only that difference. So... :) Thanks!
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Sun May 29 2005 - 00:27:12 EDT