I'd agree. It would seem strange to assume the lack of inheritance in this case and have to annotate multi-tenancy throughout the chain of associations.
On May 15, 2012, at 12:04 PM, Steve Ebersole wrote: > Multi-tenant setups sometimes have data that is shared between the > tenants (codec tables, etc). > > I think the first question is do we want to support this mixing? I > think it is common enough that it is worthwhile to support it. And I do > not think it is complicated enough to be painful to implement. As long > as we assume that there is some form of database-level availability > between shared, non-shared data (even for the DATABASE and SCHEMA > strategies) I think we will be fine. > > Assuming we do support it, there is a decision we need to make about how > we differentiate shared (tenant aware) and non-shared (non-tenant aware) > data, especially important when we talk about the DISCRIMINATOR approach > which touches on a more general outstanding decision with regard to > supporting DISCRIMINATOR multi-tenancy. Basically whether entities are > inclusively considered multi-tenant when the user has specified > DISCRIMINATOR, or whether we expect some form of annotation stating the > entity is multi-tenant. Personally, I think the inclusive approach (all > entities are assumed multi-tenant) is probably the better approach. In > which case we need an annotation to say "this entity is not multi-tenant". > > > -- > st...@hibernate.org > http://hibernate.org > _______________________________________________ > hibernate-dev mailing list > hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev JPAV _______________________________________________ hibernate-dev mailing list hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
