On Jun 1, 2005, at 2:29 PM, Frank Adcock wrote:
Thats right Mark
Cool. Well, not exactly :-/. But at least I know the score now :-)
Thanks a lot!
—ml—
On 02/06/2005, at 1:56 AM, Mark Lundquist wrote:
On May 31, 2005, at 3:30 PM, Frank Adcock wrote:
I have just been through the same process, and the only way around
it I managed to get working is to treat the component as a separate
table, rather than part of the main table. That way, normal
polymorphic configuration is applicable.
All other mechanisms I tried ended up with the base class being the
returned type, regardless of the type actually placed in the
database.
Thanks, Frank... So, if I understand correctly, you're saying that
you weren't able map it as a <component> at all, and you had to use
the parent/child idiom instead (i.e., association instead of
aggregation). Is that right?
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by Yahoo.
Introducing Yahoo! Search Developer Network - Create apps using Yahoo!
Search APIs Find out how you can build Yahoo! directly into your own
Applications - visit http://developer.yahoo.net/?fr=offad-ysdn-ostg-q22005
_______________________________________________
xdoclet-user mailing list
xdoclet-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xdoclet-user
