Ram�n Jim�nez wrote: > What you are saying is interesting in that certainly instances of class > CC have a set of properties which happen to be a superset of class BB's > properties. > But you also mention that it can be done with a single persistent class. > Could you please elaborate on this?
Really I need an example case that you think won't work. But to elaborate: All the business rules aside, my analysis of the old RDB model of his data revealed that there is just one class which was stored in two tables with the only distinction being that sometimes instances have override values that were stored in a separate table. However, since then, I see that the original values seem to have some relevance even if overridden. What I don't understand is whether the Big Guys define parameters for every individual process, or if they define global defaults for all processes. So my analysis has a gap. Regardless, I now understand why the problem is phrased as inheritance at the instance level. To phrase it another way, the properties in CC that are inherited from BB are calculated as being either the local override value from CC or the Big Guys' value from BB. This would probably be my implementation: Property ProcessMaxValue As %Integer [calculated]; Property ProcessMaxValueLocal As %Integer [private]; ProcessMaxValueGet will return ..ProcessMaxValueLocal if defined, otherwise, ..Parent.ProcessMaxValueLocal. ProcessMaxValueSet will set ProcessMaxValueLocal.
