Thank you for the help. I was able to pass the consistency check by adding restrictive qualifiers to both the super and subclasses (I could have sworn I had tried that already) however, this does not seem to work across models. What is a little confusing to me is the need to put a qualifier on the superclass. I would think that any record in the superclass table could be instantiated as that superclass, assuming it is not abstract.
The reason I would like to use Vertical Inheritance is to gain some benefits on the back end as well. By moving unique fields, typically needed on the front end only, into subclasses I am able to trim the superclass down to make batch processing much less resource intensive. My hope is that I can also see some performance gains on the front end when working with large collections when I only need the superclass attributes not to mention writing reusable code. On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 9:35 AM, David Avendasora <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Non-abstract superclasses must have restricting qualifiers as well as > their subclasses. What were the restricting qualifiers you used? They > must be unique. > > Do you have any choice in the use of Vertical Inheritance? I used to > use it as it made my "DB Normalization" voice stop screaming at me, > but in the end it was just too problematic for me. > > I switched to Single Table inheritance for all my Vertical Inheritance > uses and have been much happier since. The main thing you loose is > the DB being able to accurately keep track of which fields can be null > and unique and such, but if the only system using the DB is WO, then > the Model will keep track of that for you, There's no need to do it in > the DB as well. > > It took me a while, but I found that if I just trust WO to do it's job > and not try to anticipate it failing, I am a much more productive > developer. > > Dave > > On Mar 8, 2008, at 8:50 AM, Nathan Gabrish wrote: > > > I am attempting to create a subclass by inheriting from a non- > > abstract superclass using the vertical inheritance method. I have > > followed the steps outlined in Apples documentation for EOModeler > > but I am still getting consistency checks when I save. > > > > The consistency check that is returned when I attempt to save is as > > follows: > > "Entity Superclass (parent entity of Subclass) needs a restricting > > qualifier in order to filter out rows in table SUPER that are only > > holding data for Subclass instances" > > > > The documentation is a little unclear (to me at least) as to whether > > or not I really do need a restricting qualifier when using vertical > > inheritance but I have tried adding it anyway. I have tried adding > > the qualifier both to the superclass and subclass but I still get > > the consistency check in each case. The only way I have found to get > > around the consistency check is to mark the superclass as abstract, > > however I need to be able to instantiate objects of the superclass > > in this case so that is not going to work for me. > > > > Is it possible that the consistency check is just a bug in this case > > because EOModeler does not recognize which tye of inheritance > > mapping I am using? > > > > I am currently using version 5.1 of Webobjects. > > _______________________________________________ > > Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. > > Webobjects-dev mailing list ([email protected]) > > Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: > > > http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/webobjects%40avendasora.com > > > > This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
_______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list ([email protected]) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
