Rob van Maris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Michiel Meeuwissen > > > > Perhaps using org.mmbase.storage.database.OODatabaseStorage > > (which will already in 1.7 be replaced by something else) in > > stead will work better? That class too is targeted mainly at > > Postgresql IIRC. > > Perhaps? - do you mean I still have to find out?
For the 1.7 version I am sure that it works (we have a 'PostgresqlStorage' even there now). I am not sure that I tried it in 1.6 so I cannot be absolutely sure. It would be easy to check. > Also, is there any database supportclass at all, not using the > "experimental" storage classes, that supports inheritance completely? > Obviously the postgreSQL support classes don't, and I recall from a few > months ago that the mySQL support classes don't either. > Certainly the Oracle and McKoy support classes don't either - as they > are not maintained. Perhaps the Informix supportclass? Bug #6150 assert that it doesn't work for informix support classes either.. > Either way, on support of inheritance is less than I expected, and seems > to rely largely on experimental/deprecated classes. That is true. 'Inheritance' is a new feature in 1.6, and mainly supported by the 'storage' classes. Btw, I do not know why the posgresql support class explicitely forbids deeper inheritance. Perhaps it's enough to remove the limitation only? > At least we should be able to provide a better picture of exactly what > configurations support inheritance. I agree. The database implementations are a bit messy. The 'storage' classes do fix this largely, but unfortunately are themselves subject to heavy changes/reimplementation in 1.7 (because of an official 'storage' project). In practice the situation is that you can use inhertitance for certain databases in 1.6 already, if you are prepared to use storage classes now, and the 'new' storage when upgrading to 1.7. Michiel -- Michiel Meeuwissen Mediapark C101 Hilversum +31 (0)35 6772979 nl_NL, eo, en_US mihxil' []()
