----- Original Message ----- From: "Matthias Bohlen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Chad Brandon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 3:15 PM
Subject: Re[2]: [Andromda-user] Hibernate, inverse=true, and components
Hi Chad,
Tuesday, October 26, 2004, 10:32:28 PM, you wrote:
The bug is: isChild() should be an attribute of the association end, not of the class that is connected to the association end.
I'd like to clean this up in the code, while I am at it. What does the rest of the world think about that? Is this really a bug that I see here?
CB> If you sync and get the latest HibernateEntity.vsl, you'll see CB> that it is using the isChild() method on the AssociationEnd (I CB> fixed that a couple days ago). I'd like to keep the isChild() on CB> the entity, because I use this in other places (i.e. I'd like to CB> know if it is the child of at least one association that's a CB> composition).
Oops, you modified the Hibernate cartridge, too, while I am programming in it? That's OK as long as Eclipse CVS view does not show conflicts (in fact, it does not). The new "child" property on AssociationEnd, did you change the UML metafacades model for it? Do I have to sync the metafacades module, too? I ask because of the slow phone line. :-)
Yep, I added it to the UML metafacades model, so in that case you may want to wait to sync, however the model isn't that big
I'd like to translate a one-to-one composition into a true Hibernate component, that means, the composed object is mapped into the same table as the parent, field by field. This would require that the users change their models, if they already used compositions to single objects and do not want to compose them into the same table. Has anybody got a problem with that?
CB> What is the benefit of having the one to one table contained CB> within the parent table?
The benefit? Performance is better, as no SQL join is necessary to load or delete the child when the parent is loaded or deleted. As I write this, however, I think: what about *large* secondary objects? Maybe, these should not be mapped into the same table but should be accessed lazily.
I think lazy loading would be better, I've purposely had one2one associations because one table had stored the result of some job (a blob) with the parent table contained the information about the job, and I didn't want to load the blob each time, but again you could make this configurable through a tagged value if you really wanted to, and just have the default be lazy loading of the child in a one2one.
What do you think?
Cheers... Matthias
---
Matthias Bohlen "Consulting that helps project teams to succeed..."
Internet: http://www.mbohlen.de/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone: +49 (170) 772 8545
------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Sybase ASE Linux Express Edition - download now for FREE LinuxWorld Reader's Choice Award Winner for best database on Linux. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=5588&alloc_id=12065&op=click _______________________________________________ Andromda-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/andromda-user
------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Sybase ASE Linux Express Edition - download now for FREE LinuxWorld Reader's Choice Award Winner for best database on Linux. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=5588&alloc_id=12065&op=click _______________________________________________ Andromda-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/andromda-user
