Thanks All This clears it up a bit - like alwin suggested, I'll go with option 1; though it means more tables in DB.
Since I don't want to p1ss off the DBAs :-) I was leaning towards the the many-to-any but then querying it without NHibernate would be tougher. Thanks again Ajai On Jan 17, 9:18 pm, alwin <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
