Since there was no response earlier, I am reposting this message, so here's your chance to be a hero and help me out. ;)
Any help would be greatly appreciated. Bob. -----Original Message----- From: Robert Ollila [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2001 10:41 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [castor-dev] JDO class design constrained by RDBMS relational paradigm Hi all, I have been looking at the JDO "Product" example and I think I am concluding some significant drawbacks. In the example we have the top level "Product" class which contains a collection of "ProductDetail" objects. In order to model this containment in the RDBMS the ProductDetail class must contain a reference to the Product class which contains it. If we were just using the Java object without concern for persistance, we would not need to hold a "parent" reference in each of the collected objects. This seems like a significant drawback, especially if you are trying to persist existing classes which are not modelled this way. Is there another way to establish the one-to-many relationship in the RDBMS without changing existing classes which do not include references to the classes which contain them? In other words if the example ProductDetail class did not contain a Product reference, how would we map the one-to-many relationship? thanks, Bob. ====================================== Robert Ollila Software Engineer Vina Technologies 25 Manchester Street Merrimack, NH 03054 603-589-0669 ====================================== ----------------------------------------------------------- If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of: unsubscribe castor-dev ----------------------------------------------------------- If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of: unsubscribe castor-dev
