What is the practical case you're working with, why do you want to do what
you describe?

Some kind of dynamic ALTER TABLE equivalent? In that case won't you need to
also manipulate the *Dbs data?

Plus modifying the E/R files?



On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 7:29 PM, Thorsten Jolitz <tjol...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Alexander Burger <a...@software-lab.de> writes:
>
> > On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 01:47:01PM +0200, Thorsten Jolitz wrote:
> >> Ok, one question remains (back to the original topic of this thread, so
> >> to say):
> >
> > Right :)
> >
> >> ,--------------------------
> >> | (class +MyClass +Entitiy)
> >> | (rel :friend (+String))
> >> | (rel :birth (+Date))
> >> `--------------------------
> >>
> >> but
> >>
> >> ,--------------------------------------------------------------
> >> | (setq MyList
> >> |    '(:friend "John"
> >> |      :birth 01-01-1111
> >> |      :age 36
> >> |      :employer (<<Link to DB object of class +Employer>>) ) )
> >> `--------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Then 'put>' will complain, because it doesn't know how to handle the
> > unknown relations.
>
> So, as a conclusion, external objects (entities) are not as dynamically
> extendable as normal objects because of the need to keep the DB intact.
>
> If I want (at runtime) other or more relations than defined for the
> original (entity) class, I have to extend the class first (at runtime),
> giving the necessary info as new relation definitions, and then create
> an object with put> or new! for this extended class - right?
>
> --
> cheers,
> Thorsten
>
> --
> UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe
>

Reply via email to