[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       ojb-user
Subject:    RE: Mapping Classes on Multiple Joined Tables
From:       "Gelhar, Wallace Joseph" <GELHARWJ () uwec ! edu>
Date:       2005-04-21 17:37:34
Message-ID: FEBBF51AFF7B8B4B8A2F32F6E63092AE025572F1 () COKE ! uwec ! edu
[Download RAW message or body]

So is it now possible to combine the extent concept with a mapping on
multiple joined tables?  What would be the expected behavior in such a
scenario?

<class-descriptor class="BaseClassThatCouldBeConcrete"
table="BaseClassTable" >
        <extent-class class-ref="SubClass" />
...
</class-descriptor>
<class-descriptor class="SubClass" table="SubClassTable" >
...
  <reference-descriptor
    name="super"
    class-ref="BaseClassThatCouldBeConcrete"
    auto-retrieve="true"
    auto-update="true"
    auto-delete="true" >
    <foreignkey field-ref="..." />
  </reference-descriptor>
</class-descriptor>

-----Original Message-----
From: Armin Waibel [mailto:arminw@apache.org] 
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 12:16 PM
To: OJB Users List
Subject: Re: Mapping Classes on Multiple Joined Tables

Jakob Braeuchi wrote:
>>
>> The issue is noted in the release-notes:
>>
>> <snip>
>> - When a class mapped on multiple joined tables was used in a 
>> reference only objects
>>   of the base type class will be instantiated, e.g. a Company class
has
>>   a 1:n reference 'employees' to a base class Employee and class 
>> Manager extends Employee,
>>   then 'employees' only contains objects of type Employee even if the

>> real type was Manager.
>>   See in OJB test suite
>> ...broker.InheritanceMultipleTableTest#testInheritancedObjectsInColle
>> ctionReferences
>>
>>   Same problem occur when query the base class, then OJB only returns

>> objects of base type instead
>>   the real type.
>> </snip>
>>
>> But I admit my English is abstruse ;-)
> 
> 
> you're right, i do not understand it :(
>

That's why I wrote the test case. Maybe you can rephrase this section in
release-notes, or much better finding a solution for the problem ;-) I
will check in my changes (first alpha version) for this kind of
inheritance today plus some new tests. But it will not solve the problem
described above.

regards,
Armin

> jakob
> 
>>
>> regards,
>> Armin
>>
>>
>>
>>> Thank you,
>>> stefan walkner
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> - To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-user-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-user-help@db.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-user-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-user-help@db.apache.org
>>
>>
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-user-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-user-help@db.apache.org
> 
> 
> 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-user-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-user-help@db.apache.org


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-user-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-user-help@db.apache.org


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]