Hello, On second though we could keep the current structure and expose all fields also through AssetBase properties. Then we could save / load the AssetBase with nhibernate as a single object and leave out the Metadata property from NHibernate mapping. Does this sound good?
regards, Tommi On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 5:06 PM, Mike Mazur <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 4:05 PM, Tommi Laukkanen > <[email protected]> wrote: > > I was talking with mikkopa and he suggested we should create two tables > to > > cover AssetBase to solve this issue properly. Namely AssetMetadata for > > metadata information and AssetData for blobs to avoid situation where we > end > > up accessing also the blob data just to read metadata. > > I was hoping not to have to do that. > > It should be straightforward to support the current > AssetBase/AssetMetadata composition in the existing OpenSim data > layers, but as sdague warned me earlier, by mapping multiple classes > to one table I was entering a world of pain. Seems that's exactly > what's happening with NHibernate. > > The reason I introduced the AssetMetadata class is to supply metadata > information only for some requests that Cable Beach, the new asset > server, supports. Now I realize that this was probably a premature > optimization. > > Instead of modifying the DB schema, we could have AssetBase inherit > from AssetMetadata, as I outlined before[1]. Alternatively, we could > get rid of AssetMetadata altogether and store everything in AssetBase > as before, splitting out the metadata sometime in the future when a > use case warrants it. > > What do you think? > > Thanks, > Mike > > > [1] > https://lists.berlios.de/pipermail/opensim-dev/2009-February/004918.html >
_______________________________________________ Opensim-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
