Hi Andrus,
On 03/06/2007, at 7:12 PM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
On Jun 1, 2007, at 3:24 PM, Lachlan Deck wrote:
On 01/06/2007, at 7:32 PM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
With this in mind we do not need an inheritance ObjRelationship,
but we may use a DbRelationship to store join semantics (anybody
Hi Lachlan,
On Jun 1, 2007, at 3:24 PM, Lachlan Deck wrote:
On 01/06/2007, at 7:32 PM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
With this in mind we do not need an inheritance ObjRelationship,
but we may use a DbRelationship to store join semantics (anybody
mentioned that already??).
Well the original sugg
On 01/06/2007, at 7:32 PM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
With this in mind we do not need an inheritance ObjRelationship,
but we may use a DbRelationship to store join semantics (anybody
mentioned that already??).
Well the original suggestion I made was for superRelationship="nameOfRelationship" .
This was a long thread, and I may have missed some points already
made. Let me try to summarize this discussion and add my comments to
it. There are two aspects of the "vertical inheritance relationship":
1. Specifying the join semantics for non-trivial PK-to-PK mapping
(such as compound ke
On 31/05/2007, at 11:46 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
Hi Ari,
On May 31, 2007, at 12:21 AM, Aristedes Maniatis wrote:
Then you are suggesting that we use the name of the attribute in
the two ObjEntities as the mechanism to see which pairs correspond.
No, I'm suggesting to look at the databa
