This should work (assuming you don't want to join between bookings and car_bookings, and you're happy just to duplicate the common elements in the schema):
class Booking include DataMapper::Resource storage_names[:default] = 'bookings' end class CarBooking < Booking storage_names[:default] = 'car_bookings' end CarBooking will come from the car_bookings table, and will have all of the columns in Booking, plus any that it defines itself. If you want a schema where car_bookings only has the fields that do not exist in bookings (e.g. bookings - id - customer_id - created_at car_bookings - booking_id - manufacturer - year ) then this is generally not a great idea as it gets out of hand quickly. On 29/06/2011, at 21:32, Juan wrote: > No I think one table for class, but getting the model in an heritance. > > class Booking > include DataMapper::Resource > > > end > > class CarBooking < Booking > > end > > But store the objects of each class in a different database tables. > > Can I? > > Thanks > > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "DataMapper" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/datamapper?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DataMapper" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/datamapper?hl=en.
