I use applications that have Entities with overriden properties on purpose. That can make compositing easier sometimes.
So, for me its good as it is now. Paul -- Sent from my Vectrex using a joystick Le 26 oct. 2010 à 04:41, Rickard Öberg <[email protected]> a écrit : > On 2010-10-25 13.54, Rickard Öberg wrote: >> On 2010-10-25 13.47, Rickard Öberg wrote: >>> I have just found a major issue in how JSONMapEntityStore (and all >>> stores based on it) work, based on a recent change just before the 1.2 >>> release. Basically all existing data becomes unusable. If you use Qi4j >>> in production with any of those entitystores, do NOT upgrade right now >>> until we have sorted this out. >> >> Ok, the changes seem to actually only be in 1.3-SNAPSHOT, and not in the >> 1.2-release, so doing an upgrade to 1.2 final is ok. 1.3-SNAPSHOT still >> has issues we need to fix. > > The changes that screwed up entitystores have been reverted. Feel free to use > HEAD again with your existing databases. > > The main issue was that Stanislav found that if an Entity has two mixins with > properties of the same name, they would overwrite each other since they are > stored in JSON with the name and not the qualified name. He then (on his own > and without communicating it) changed that to use qualified names, which of > course makes any existing data unreadable. These changes have now been > reverted (as has Stanislavs commit rights). > > The main reasons we used the simple property name instead of the qualified > property name is that it makes refactoring of data within an entity much > easier. You can split mixins, combine mixins, rename mixins, and all sorts of > things, without having to do any database refactoring. In the past I have > found this convenience to be quite useful, especially in the early phase when > where properties are defined tend to change a lot. Another reason is that > since using qualified names would ONLY be useful if there is a clash, it's a > lot of overhead to store the qualified names "just in case". > > But the issue remains that if you are not careful, you can end up with an > entity that have many properties with the same name, and which will give you > trouble without warning. My suggestion to this is that we simply add a > warning, maybe even consider the assembly faulty, if an entity has several > properties (or associations) with the same name. That would ensure that it's > impossible to get an application that has these issues. > > WDYT? Any other ideas? > > /Rickard > > > _______________________________________________ > qi4j-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/qi4j-dev _______________________________________________ qi4j-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/qi4j-dev
