On Feb 28, 9:31 am, "Diez B. Roggisch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That might be true, but your design is still flawed. Sooner or later you > will run into issues with joins because of the SO-inheritance-magic > taking place for an unnecessary case. In what respect is it flawed? Do you claim that SO is not mature enough to handle 5-6 joins via inheritance magic (that's the number of needed inheritance levels for the program)? Can you comment on SQLAlchemy for the same purpose, please? Inheritance is vital for this program. > All you want from your base-class is to propagate created-columns > through your model classes. Joining a common table for that each time is > a needless waste, and will get in your way soon. I think you misunderstood the aim. The shown by svetl three top classes are used to derive 10 already implemented classes (out of 30..50 planned). Simple duplication of the column definition is definitely not enough. The three classes were selected to show the problem, not the overall design. BTW, your example of a good design only renames Base->car, BaseSample- >Mercedes, and BaseData->BMW (or do you consider BMW as a subclass of Mercedes? Wierd naming to me, and in that case no corresponding class is shown, still such classes do exist). > Diez Best regards, Vladimir --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TurboGears" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/turbogears?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
