Hi Andy,On Aug 9, 2005, at 9:55 AM, Michael Bouschen wrote: Hi Andy,
thanks for the info! You are right, I forgot that I have the add <field> elements for the inherited fields.
Regards Michael
Suppose there are two non-abstract persistence-capable classes A and B. Class B extends A. Both explicitly define the inheritance strategy new-table. Class A maps to table TA and B maps to table TB. Then there are still two scenarios possible, depending on where to store the inherited fields of B instances: (1) In table TA. Then we need a <join> element, since a class B instance is represented by a row in table TA and a row in table TB. (2) In table TB. No <join> element is needed since TB includes columns for the inherited fields. So TA only has rows for class A instances, not for B instances.
Hi Michael,
that's not our interpretation of the spec :-)
In your example if both classes have "new-table" then we have the fields specified in class A persisted into table TA, and the fields specified in class B persisted into table TB - so option 1 (ONLY), and we do not need any <join> unless wanting to override the join column names (pk columns). An instance of B will have a row in TA, and an associated row in TB. An instance of A will have a row in TA only.
So to retrieve values for an instance of B, you need to select from both TA and TB. The reason many of us think of this as a join is that in order to do one SQL SELECT statement, an implementation will naturally do:
SELECT ta.name, ta.addr, tb.empid, tb.salary FROM TA ta, TB tb WHERE tb.pk = ta.pk AND tb.pk = ?
But you are right; the join doesn't need to be explicitly defined in the .orm, and there doesn't need to be a foreign key relationship in the database. But it does help to have the foreign key relationship to guarantee referential integrity.
The only difference we see from option 1 is where the user decides to override the <field> specifications for a field of A, in class B e.g <class name="B"> <field name="A.field1"/>
Of course, you need to specify the <column name="FIELD1"/> because there are no defaults for column names... </class> which would mean that table TB will carry the value for that field (rather than the column in table TA).
This is my understanding as well for option 2 mapping. All of the inherited fields that come from A are mapped explicitly in B's orm.
Craig
-- Michael Bouschen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Engineering GmbH Tel.:++49/30/235 520-33 Buelowstr. 66 Fax.:++49/30/2175 2012 D-10783 Berlin
|
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
