Niclas Hedhman wrote: > On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 11:46 AM, Rickard Öberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> It should be the Entity that has the Association, i.e. Employer in this >> cases. That's the only place where we can add deletion logic, i.e. in a >> concern for Lifecycle.remove(). > > Ahhhh... Ok. Still a "BIG NOTE" needed... > > But is the secondary Entity "created" as part of the AssociationRole > creation, or is it created normally first and then placed into an > AssociationRole? > If the first, then ownership becomes natural, otherwise it is a bit weird.
It is up to the app code to create it. I.e. created first and then placed into a AssociationRole. > In fact, doesn't this touch a lot on aggregation in general?? Indeed. > If Entity had "newEntityBuilder" which only took its "aggregated" > types as argument, it would never be unnatural to when it is > aggregated or not. That doesn't quite work though, since aggregated Entities might be created as a side-effect using concerns on Lifecycle.create(). In SiteVision that was the by far most common way to create aggregated entities. /Rickard _______________________________________________ qi4j-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/qi4j-dev
