On 3/29/08 4:22 PM, "Andrus Adamchik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mar 29, 2008, at 9:25 PM, Kevin Menard wrote: >> Likewise, there may be a reason a user is mapping multiple >> relationships, >> and in that case, I'd call the term "redundant" pejorative. > > Ok, let's call them "overlapping" or something else. The important > thing is what that means: there are two or more overlapping > collections based on the same join condition. And this is a curse for > object graph consistency. Users should create their own filter on top > of a single most inclusive collection and stop mapping the overlapping > ones ... or risk messed up object graph right away. I'd say this > should be a warning in the modeler. Sounds good. The modeler probably shouldn't auto-generate overlapping relationships either. > Ok, maybe to reduce the number of cases we need to analyze, why don't > we stop this discussion, and work on reducing the number of runtime > relationships created (hmm... I only see a single case: a to-many part > of a 1..N), then see what harm is caused by the remaining ones. Largely, that's what I was shooting for by CAY-1008 and CAY-1009. In the process though, I think I've confounded the situation a bit. I do like the approach though. > >> If we want to go down the path of allowing multiple reverse >> relationships, I >> can lead the work up. I don't want you to think I'm trying to shell >> this >> off on you. I just don't want to be making large architectural >> changes >> without someone else keeping me in check. > > Yes, in order for us to keep consistent architecture, I feel like I'd > have to be involved anyways. I don't think it is good for anybody if > we have a set of diverging architectural visions in one product. > Sounding like a control freak, but I don't see any other way around. That's fine with me. I've just always been of the mindset that if I want something, I should step up to the plate. Clearly, though, you understand the architecture better than anyone else. Realizing that this likely wasn't a priority for you but is for me, do you want to come up with some sort of mini-roadmap? I was thinking of soliciting one from the list anyway so that we have an idea of when to release 3.0 M4. -- Kevin
