Hi all, I'm writing to underline some differences between the data model shown in the dspace site ( http://www.dspace.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=149#data_model ) and the actual code present in the /trunk ( http://dspace-sandbox.googlecode.com/svn/mirror/dspace/trunk/ ).
There are differences in the associations between objects of the model: some one-to-many associations in the model are replaced in the code by many-to-many ones. I found 3 examples: - In the model, a Collection can be owned by only one Community, whereas in the code a Collection can be owned by many Community. - In the model, a Bundle can be owned by only one Item, and in the code it can be owned by more then one Item - In the model, a Bitstream can be owned by only one Bundle, and in the code by more then one. In the database schema, all the associations are many-to-many, there are no restrictions. I also looked at Jim's DAO-prototype ( http://dspace-sandbox.googlecode.com/svn/branches/dao-prototype/ ), and he reflects the database schema, using only many-to-many associations. I'm working on a prototype to introduce Hibernate, and i'd base my work on Jim's choice, but i'd like to have some opinions about it, what should we do? update the data model associations? follow the model and update the code in /trunk? what kind of associations should be kept and what dropped? My mentor Andrea will write his opinions replying to this email, to let everyone know them. We both are interested in having other opinions to choose the best way to go ahead. Cheers, Daniele ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ DSpace-tech mailing list DSpace-tech@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dspace-tech
