I would go with option 1: it is the easiest to understand and to
manage.
What would be the benefit of option 2 or 3? To me they mostly look
like extra complexity.
If you want, you could let Page and Product implement ITaggable.
interface ITaggable {
IEnumerable<Tag> Tags{ get; }
}
On 17 jan, 01:25, ajaishankar <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi
>
> I'm trying to figure out which is the best way to map the following
> many to many relation in NH.
>
> It would be great if you could point me in the right direction.
>
> In my domain I have unrelated entities that are "taggable".
>
> Page has many Tags
> Product has many Tags
>
> What would be the preferred approach to model this?
>
> 1. Put each association in its own link table (Page_Tags,
> Product_Tags)
>
> 2. Or would it be possible to put all the links in a single link table
> Entity_Tags (EntityType, EntityId, TagId)
>
> Is this the purpose for <many-to-any> mapping?
>
> 3. I'm also thinking of deriving everything from a Taggable class -
> but don't know if that is right
>
> In this case everything would be in Taggable_Tags
>
> Thanks
>
> Ajai
--
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.
