Maybe it gets clearer if NeedsData2 is something like this:
class NeedsData2
{
public NeedsData1 { get; set; }
public NeedsData2DataWrapper { get; set; }
}
NeedsData1 is the template to be used for NeedsData2. So I set
NeedsData2DataWrapper.Data = NeedsData.NeedsData1DataWrapper.Data.Clone
(); //Clones the Data without the Id
NeedsData2 now has the original template value
NeedsData2.NeedsData1.NeedsData1DataWrapper.Data
and the values the class itself can change
NeedsData2.NeedsData2DataWrapper.Data
I hope you get the point :)
Greetings
Reflection
On 2 Okt., 12:53, reflection <[email protected]> wrote:
> Well I could have, but i would prefer to have the values for
> NeedsData1 in another table then NeedsData2. The background is that
> e.g. in NeedsData1 the DataClass is sort of a template and in
> NeedsData2 it is sort of instance of this template - actually I copy
> the values from the template to the instantiated version.
> I would like to separate the templates from the instantiated values...
> I think the Database Design would be clearer if I wouldn't mix those
> types.
>
> On 2 Okt., 12:14, Oskar Berggren <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Why can't you just let the table for NeedsData1/2 have a foreign key
> > referencing the Data table?
>
> > /Oskar
>
> > 2009/10/2 reflection <[email protected]>:
>
> > > Hello,
>
> > > How would you map the following Scencario?
>
> > > abstract class DataClass
> > > {
> > > public Int64 DataId { get; set; }
> > > }
>
> > > class DataInt: DataClass
> > > {
> > > public Int64 IntData { get; set; }
> > > }
>
> > > class DataString: DataClass
> > > {
> > > public String StringData { get; set; }
> > > }
>
> > > class NeedsData1
> > > {
> > > public DataClass Data { get; set; }
> > > }
>
> > > class NeedsData2
> > > {
> > > public DataClass Data { get; set; }
> > > }
>
> > > My Problem is that I don't know how to map such a scenarion. As you
> > > may have noticed there is no relationship from the child class
> > > (DataClass) to the parent class (NeedsData1/NeedsData2).
>
> > > I could do something like this:
>
> > > class NeedsData1DataWrapper
> > > {
> > > public NeedsData1 Parent { get; set; }
> > > public DataClass Data { get; set; }
> > > }
>
> > > class NeedsData1
> > > {
> > > public NeedsData1DataWrapper { get; set; }
> > > }
>
> > > class NeedsData2DataWrapper
> > > {
> > > public NeedsData2 Parent { get; set; }
> > > public DataClass Data { get; set; }
> > > }
>
> > > class NeedsData2
> > > {
> > > public NeedsData2DataWrapper { get; set; }
> > > }
>
> > > That would be an option, but DataClass will be mapped to one table. Is
> > > there a possibility to map it to two tables without copying the whole
> > > inheritance structure. My head's on fire as I'm thinking about this
> > > for a few days now and I can't get a nice solution.
>
> > > Any help appreciated =) Thanks in advance!!!!
>
> > > Greetings
> > > Reflection- Zitierten Text ausblenden -
>
> > - Zitierten Text anzeigen -- Zitierten Text ausblenden -
>
> - Zitierten Text anzeigen -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"nhusers" 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/nhusers?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
