This seems to be at the core of much confusion...hopefully one of the
persistence experts will weigh in and enlighten us. I keep watch on
this thread and weigh in a bit later, in a rush at the moment!
On Nov 11, 7:39 am, "a.maza" wrote:
> I am thinking if it makes sense from a design perspektiv
but then it would be again an owned relationship, which I actually
wanted to avoid...
On 13 Nov., 06:33, Rusty Wright wrote:
> One of the things I've been wondering about is if it helps to invert the
> ownership.
>
> Thinking out loud again. Feedback welcome; feel free to point out flaws in
One of the things I've been wondering about is if it helps to invert the
ownership.
Thinking out loud again. Feedback welcome; feel free to point out flaws in my
logic, or whatever.
For example, if you have a class Person with favorite foods, with an rdbms
you'd have:
@PersistenceCapable(ide
Yes, my idea was that, in some cases, inverting the relationship could possibly
avoid the parenting/ownership problems. Not that it's a solution for all cases.
As far as I can figure out, the problems with objects that can't have a parent,
are objects that move around, or that are in (reference
