Maybe this is another possibility, though it may not be the most performant solution:
http://colinjack.blogspot.com/2008/03/nhibernate-working-around-lack-of.html On 2 Okt., 14:18, reflection <[email protected]> wrote: > Now you got what I mean ;) I actually see the fact that you should > normally only work with the Domain Modell. Though the relational model > suffers. > > My First thought was components, too. But they don't support > Inheritance. They should really introduce something like that :) I > would have to do some tricks to do that. > I think it is better to have a clear Domain Modell a bit messy > relational modell, then having a lot of DB stuff in the domain modell > which actually has no use for the Domain Modell... > > Well you could actually move some stuff to the DAL but I think this > will get very complex. > > I think I'm going to map them all to the same table. I hope I don't > get any problems, because the relationship can only be unidirectional. > > On 2 Okt., 13:50, Oskar Berggren <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I see what you mean. Personally I probably wouldn't mind since it's > > the object model I see and work with. > > > Another alternative might be to not use a separate table for Data, but > > instead treating DataClass as acomponent, mapping it to separate > > fields in t_Needsdata1 and t_Needsdata2. You would have to look this > > up in the reference, I'm unsure of the details and how it works when > > you have subclasses to DataClass. This option is useful if one > > instance of Needsdata have exactly one instance of DataClass, and the > > instances of the latter class aren't shared between different > > instances of Needsdata. > > > /Oskar > > > 2009/10/2 reflection <[email protected]>: > > > > Well I understand what you mean. I wanted to separate the Data from > > > NeedsData1 and NeedsData2 because they have a different context. > > > Programmatically they are exactly the same thing, but logically they > > > are not. > > > I didn't want to mix the template Data with the real Data in the > > > Database. But maybe I'm just a bit too strict separating concerns ;) > > > > On 2 Okt., 13:20, Oskar Berggren <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> I think that you seem to get way to many classes for this now, with > > >> the wrapper stuff. Seems strange. :) > > > >> In my previous mail I didn't actually say one or two tables. You could > > >> have tables t_Needsdata1 with foreign key to t_Data, and t_Needsdata2, > > >> also with fk to t_Data. > > > >> When you do the clone you mention, and the new instance of Data is > > >> saved, it will create a new row in the t_Data table. Some rows in > > >> t_Data are pointed to by t_Needsdata1, others by t_Needsdata2. And > > >> your object model remains clean from the "wrappers". > > > >> /Oskar > > > >> 2009/10/2 reflection <[email protected]>: > > > >> > 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 -- Zitierten Text ausblenden - > > > >> - Zitierten Text anzeigen -- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
