I have a similar solution in my job. I've done in the following way:
class A {
...
}
class A_normal extends A {
}
class A_history extends A {
}
Only A_normal and A_history are mapped in repository.xml.
So, if I need to manipulate the object, I use class A. To store a normal object, I use
and
Thanks for the reply. It looks like I also may have to use a Rowreader to correctly
store nested objects as well, so I may very well choose that approach. Thanks again.
--
Liam Morley
From: Thomas DudziakSent: Sun 6/27/04 4:58 AMTo: OJB Users ListSubject: Re: mapping
fields to an array
Morley, Li
Hi,
> imo you don't need a reference pointing from C back to A.
sorry, I think u got me wrong. Our C object needs a reference to A
(it is a decorator), but only B_TABLE has aID as FK. thats what I
meant with:
First problem and question:
> > OJB needs a reference from C to A, which is defined i
Morley, Liam wrote:
We've got a db table with a structure like this:
Name
Address
SSN
Field1
Field2
...
Field30approx
The guy who designed the java class for this (a bit more of a C-style programmer
than I am) wrote a class structure like this:
String name;
Address address;
String ssn;
int[] field
hi oliver,
imo you don't need a reference pointing from C back to A.
jakob
Oliver wrote:
Hello,
we would be very grateful for suggestions:
Environment: OJB 1.0rc7 with PostgreSql
We read many other postings and the docs but still have problems with the
following:
In a nutshell:
B is abstract
C exte
I have 3 separate objects: A, B, and C. A has a collection of B, where each B has a C.
I can store any one of these objects individually without a problem. What I'd like to
do, though, is store A, and have B and C recursively stored (and mapped to each other
correctly). Currently, when I store A
