Hi there,
On 01/06/2007, at 10:50 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
On Jun 1, 2007, at 2:42 AM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
On May 31, 2007, at 9:51 AM, Lachlan Deck wrote:
There are numerous uses for these partial instances (if you'd
like to call them that) when you want to only fetch the
character
On Jun 1, 2007, at 2:42 AM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
On May 31, 2007, at 9:51 AM, Lachlan Deck wrote:
There are numerous uses for these partial instances (if you'd like
to call them that) when you want to only fetch the characteristics
of the parent, for example, without also having to faul
On 01/06/2007, at 6:55 PM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
IMO, "abstract" is limited to its Java definition, and is of no
consequence to the runtime inheritance processing (note that
'resolvingInherited' query property is true by default).
I was thinking that 'isAbstract' (if true for the parent en
On May 31, 2007, at 9:51 AM, Lachlan Deck wrote:
There are numerous uses for these partial instances (if you'd like
to call them that) when you want to only fetch the characteristics
of the parent, for example, without also having to fault in the
data for the subclasses. e.g., if I have a
Hi,
Per http://cayenne.apache.org/mailing-lists.html the right email
address is "[EMAIL PROTECTED]". Let me know if this
still didn't work, and I'll unsubscribe you manually.
Andrus
On May 31, 2007, at 8:44 AM, srinivas sagar wrote:
I have tried to unsubscribe from this list by sending
a
IMO, "abstract" is limited to its Java definition, and is of no
consequence to the runtime inheritance processing (note that
'resolvingInherited' query property is true by default). So the most
important aspect of it is generating a corresponding Java class with
an "abstract" keyword, so th
Hi Craig,
On 31/05/2007, at 11:46 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
On May 31, 2007, at 12:21 AM, Aristedes Maniatis wrote:
On 31/05/2007, at 4:59 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
If it really is an inheritance relationship and not a one-one or
one-many relationship, the compound primary keys should al
Hi Ari,
On May 31, 2007, at 12:21 AM, Aristedes Maniatis wrote:
On 31/05/2007, at 4:59 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
If it really is an inheritance relationship and not a one-one or
one-many relationship, the compound primary keys should also
correspond exactly.
Then you are suggesting that
On 31/05/2007, at 4:59 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
If it really is an inheritance relationship and not a one-one or
one-many relationship, the compound primary keys should also
correspond exactly.
Then you are suggesting that we use the name of the attribute in the
two ObjEntities as the
Hi Aristedes,
On May 30, 2007, at 10:09 PM, Aristedes Maniatis wrote:
On 31/05/2007, at 1:03 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
While it might be possible theoretically to define a different
column in the database to be used as the association column to
join rows of a subclass and a superclass ta
Hi again,
On 31/05/2007, at 4:32 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
On May 30, 2007, at 11:19 PM, Lachlan Deck wrote:
On 31/05/2007, at 4:13 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
On May 30, 2007, at 8:19 PM, Lachlan Deck wrote:
However, my question remains this: if not defined in a
relationship where does
Hi Lachlan,
On May 30, 2007, at 11:19 PM, Lachlan Deck wrote:
Hi Craig,
On 31/05/2007, at 4:13 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
On May 30, 2007, at 8:19 PM, Lachlan Deck wrote:
However, my question remains this: if not defined in a
relationship where does the developer define the delete rules
Hi Craig,
On 31/05/2007, at 4:13 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
On May 30, 2007, at 8:19 PM, Lachlan Deck wrote:
However, my question remains this: if not defined in a
relationship where does the developer define the delete rules etc?
Or are you suggesting they don't get an option?
In an inh
Hi Lachlan,
On May 30, 2007, at 8:19 PM, Lachlan Deck wrote:
Hi there,
On 31/05/2007, at 1:03 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
On May 30, 2007, at 7:23 PM, Lachlan Deck wrote:
On 31/05/2007, at 11:54 AM, Lachlan Deck wrote:
On 31/05/2007, at 10:44 AM, Mike Kienenberger wrote:
On 5/30/07, Ari
On 31/05/2007, at 3:44 PM, srinivas sagar wrote:
I have tried to unsubscribe from this list by sending
an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] , but to no
avail can anybody suggest how else I could try ?
http://cayenne.apache.org/mailing-lists.html
-->
Aristedes Maniatis
phon
On 31/05/2007, at 3:44 PM, srinivas sagar wrote:
I have tried to unsubscribe from this list by sending
an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] , but to no
avail can anybody suggest how else I could try ?
How about reading here:
http://cayenne.apache.org/mailing-lists.html
with regards,
--
Lachlan Deck
I have tried to unsubscribe from this list by sending
an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] , but to no
avail can anybody suggest how else I could try ?
Be
a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from s
On 31/05/2007, at 1:03 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
While it might be possible theoretically to define a different
column in the database to be used as the association column to join
rows of a subclass and a superclass table, by far the most common
and most understandable way to map inherita
Hi there,
On 31/05/2007, at 1:03 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
On May 30, 2007, at 7:23 PM, Lachlan Deck wrote:
On 31/05/2007, at 11:54 AM, Lachlan Deck wrote:
On 31/05/2007, at 10:44 AM, Mike Kienenberger wrote:
On 5/30/07, Aristedes Maniatis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
When we get to vertic
On May 30, 2007, at 7:23 PM, Lachlan Deck wrote:
On 31/05/2007, at 11:54 AM, Lachlan Deck wrote:
On 31/05/2007, at 10:44 AM, Mike Kienenberger wrote:
On 5/30/07, Aristedes Maniatis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
When we get to vertical inheritance there will be at least one
other
property add
On 31/05/2007, at 11:54 AM, Lachlan Deck wrote:
On 31/05/2007, at 10:44 AM, Mike Kienenberger wrote:
On 5/30/07, Aristedes Maniatis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
When we get to vertical inheritance there will be at least one other
property added to the ObjEntity: the name of the relationship
u
On 31/05/2007, at 10:44 AM, Mike Kienenberger wrote:
On 5/30/07, Aristedes Maniatis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
When we get to vertical inheritance there will be at least one other
property added to the ObjEntity: the name of the relationship used to
find the superclass.
When we get to inherit
On 5/30/07, Aristedes Maniatis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
When we get to vertical inheritance there will be at least one other
property added to the ObjEntity: the name of the relationship used to
find the superclass.
When we get to inheritance, we'd be wise to follow the JPA methodology
for sp
On 31/05/2007, at 2:40 AM, Kevin Menard wrote:
I'm clearly showing my ignorance on the matter here, but what does it
mean for an object to know that it's abstract? Isn't that a
property of
the class? What happens when you subclass the ObjEntity?
Cayenne will need to know this information
On 30/05/2007, at 3:04 PM, Lachlan Deck wrote:
On 29/05/2007, at 11:02 PM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
Ok, I overlooked the issue of DB mapping of abstract entities that
do not have a DbEntity. IIRC this issue was raised when we
discussed embeddables. Not sure we came to any conclusion back
th
On 5/30/07, Mike Kienenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
info by any kind of task. But you'd never have a WORK_ORDER entry
without a subclass table. Thus, the template generator should never
create WorkOrder as an abstract class.
Ugh. This should have been "would always create WorkOrder as
Gotcha. That makes a lot more sense now.
Thanks,
Kevin
> -Original Message-
> From: Mike Kienenberger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 12:47 PM
> To: dev@cayenne.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Abstract Entities [Was: Modelling improvements:
PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: Aristedes Maniatis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 4:32 AM
> To: dev@cayenne.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Abstract Entities [Was: Modelling improvements:
> inheritance + interfacing (Draft)]
> -Original Message-
> From: Aristedes Maniatis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 4:32 AM
> To: dev@cayenne.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Abstract Entities [Was: Modelling improvements:
> inheritance + interfacing (Draft)]
>
> > * Cha
On May 30, 2007, at 7:27 AM, Lachlan Deck wrote:
* Changes to the validation rules to allow ObjEntity with no db
entity for abstract entities
The question of 'isAbstract' is merely a question of 'can instances
of this entity be instantiated'?
Certainly changes to validation rules are n
On 29/05/2007, at 8:01 PM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
Trying to decompose it further (so that we could Jira individual
chunks easily :-))... +1 for the abstract entities support, but
they can also be implemented as a separate feature independent from
inheritance per se.
needs the following
On 29/05/2007, at 11:02 PM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
Ok, I overlooked the issue of DB mapping of abstract entities that
do not have a DbEntity. IIRC this issue was raised when we
discussed embeddables. Not sure we came to any conclusion back
then. So is this what proposed "DbEntity interfaces
On 29/05/2007, at 8:01 PM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
Trying to decompose it further (so that we could Jira individual
chunks easily :-))... +1 for the abstract entities support, but
they can also be implemented as a separate feature independent from
inheritance per se.
True.
needs the foll
Ok, I overlooked the issue of DB mapping of abstract entities that do
not have a DbEntity. IIRC this issue was raised when we discussed
embeddables. Not sure we came to any conclusion back then. So is this
what proposed "DbEntity interfaces" are for? Maybe we can simplify
that and continue
Trying to decompose it further (so that we could Jira individual
chunks easily :-))... +1 for the abstract entities support, but they
can also be implemented as a separate feature independent from
inheritance per se.
needs the following additional (optional) xml
attributes:
-
35 matches
Mail list logo
