Correct. Abstract and lazy resolution (and also various fetch/
instantiation strategies) are unrelated concepts.
Andrus
On Jun 4, 2007, at 3:19 AM, Lachlan Deck wrote:
On 04/06/2007, at 7:19 AM, Lachlan Deck wrote:
On 04/06/2007, at 6:40 AM, Lachlan Deck wrote:
On 03/06/2007, at 10:42
On Jun 3, 2007, at 2:00 AM, Craig L Russell wrote:
I hope this doesn't confuse things more, but in reality, you often
have schema that fall into multiple categories of mapping.
No confusion at all - in reality we do have to deal with mixed
scenarios, so we have to account for them.
For
On Jun 3, 2007, at 2:44 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
I am still entertaining the idea that we can support vertical
inheritance without a designator column, and I don't think that
having such column in place is such a big shortcut in
implementation. After all the logic will be the same as
On 03/06/2007, at 6:50 PM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
One note - in Cayenne discriminator column is implemented via a
more generic entity qualifier expression (e.g. it can match
multiple columns or use some custom comparison condition). This
approach generally prevents a simplification of a
On 03/06/2007, at 10:42 PM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
On Jun 3, 2007, at 2:44 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
I am still entertaining the idea that we can support vertical
inheritance without a designator column, and I don't think that
having such column in place is such a big shortcut in
On 04/06/2007, at 7:19 AM, Lachlan Deck wrote:
On 04/06/2007, at 6:40 AM, Lachlan Deck wrote:
On 03/06/2007, at 10:42 PM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
2. Fetching only the base table on select should be possible, so
that's probably the most obvious benefit. Originally I thought in
this case
Hi Ari,
-Original Message-
From: Aristedes Maniatis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 7:38 PM
To: dev@cayenne.apache.org
Subject: Re: [CONF] Apache Cayenne Documentation: Inheritance
overview (page created)
I don't see how table-per-class can be used
On 03/06/2007, at 3:25 AM, Kevin Menard wrote:
I think what you may have missed is that it's a single
table-per-class-hierarchy, not table-per-class.
Yes, you are right. I read it as (table-per-class)-hierarchy rather
than table-per-(class-hierarchy).
I've made a little translation table
Hi Ari,
I hope this doesn't confuse things more, but in reality, you often
have schema that fall into multiple categories of mapping.
For example, a hierarchy might have a table that maps all of the
fields of the superclass A. Class B extends A and has a table BS
containing a
At the time, those were the terms used by Hibernate and supplied by a
Hibernate user.
I'm pretty sure I double-checked them, but I could be wrong.
On 5/31/07, Aristedes Maniatis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 01/06/2007, at 2:26 AM, Mike Kienenberger wrote:
You might want to grab some of the
10 matches
Mail list logo
