what that should do?
An association to a polymorphic object that is not
plain-class-hierarchy (which is, several associations, one per
subtype)?
i am asking as this seems as another way to do aspects/multiple
inheritance; my way is a single association with multiple references
(to the
the first set of operations on the Session place every new object,
including two Address objects and two GenericAssoc objects, in the
session. Then the session is cleared. Then, a series of loads load
in all those same objects, including the same Address objects and
GenericAssoc
On Thursday 03 July 2008 17:15:40 Michael Bayer wrote:
the first set of operations on the Session place every new object,
including two Address objects and two GenericAssoc objects, in the
session. Then the session is cleared. Then, a series of loads
load in all those same objects,
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 6:01 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 03 July 2008 17:15:40 Michael Bayer wrote:
the first set of operations on the Session place every new object,
including two Address objects and two GenericAssoc objects, in the
session. Then the session is cleared. Then,
so my woe about this thing which i asked in the aspects-revisited
mail:
can i get all someaddress.members in ONE query?
some secondary mapper - but how? polymorphic-union?
On Thursday 03 July 2008 19:36:12 Gaetan de Menten wrote:
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 6:01 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On
also, can someone explain what is the difference (sql-plan-wise) in
the approaches?
this one is:
address -
addressable
- users
- orders
my one is otherway around:
address -
addressable
- users
- orders
both declare multiple (per-type)
seems this way many users can have same adress, but one user (or
order) cannot have more than one adress. so it's a polymorphic
1-to-many.
my one is for a many to many.
correct?
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
in this example, if u make another user u2 pointing to same address1,
u1.adresses goes wrong... - last one wins.
On Thursday 03 July 2008 19:36:12 Gaetan de Menten wrote:
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 6:01 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 03 July 2008 17:15:40 Michael Bayer wrote:
the
