Oh, and actually I think we can fix it in the interim per https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CAY-1744 … The "hack" in the example makes me blush :)
Andrus On Oct 6, 2012, at 12:04 AM, Andrus Adamchik <and...@objectstyle.org> wrote: > Hi Ramiro, > > Finally I have something specific for you: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CAY-1743 > > In the source code attached to this Jira, I am simply blocking "readOnly" > status of all model relationships. The example is a completely self-conatined > project. It is built against 3.2M1-SNAPSHOT (SVN trunk), but it should work > with 3.1B1 as well. And for 3.0.x, you can simply "inline" the fancy DI > module code in "cayennehacks"… > > Take a look at Main.java and cayennehacks package. The "hacks" is what it > takes now to make vertical inheritance relationships work. > >> If I try to creat a entity relationship on User I must set the target to >> Session entity and not WebSession, if I set it to WebSession tells me there >> is no mapping and if I choose the correct mapping to WebSession then as >> there is no entity linked to that table it complains about no target entity. > > This part worked for me on 3.1B1 Modeler. > > Andrus > > > > On Oct 5, 2012, at 5:28 PM, Ramiro Aparicio <ramiro.apari...@prot-on.com> > wrote: > >> El 19/09/2012 22:12, Andrus Adamchik escribió: >>> On Sep 19, 2012, at 11:24 AM, Ramiro Aparicio <ramiro.apari...@prot-on.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> BTW I tried to do everything with 3.0.2 modeller and finally updated to >>>> 3.1.B1 modeller, Will the model created with 3.1.B1 modeller work with >>>> 3.0.2 runtime? (I want to update the runtime but just in case I can not do >>>> it). >>> No, once you upgrade the Model to 3.1, there's no (automated) way to go >>> back to 3.0. The project structure is different in 3.1. The biggest change >>> is that the new projects have at most 1 domain per project. It is probably >>> doable by manually editing XML, but there's little point in that. After all >>> the only reason to use the new Modeler is if you are planning to use the >>> new runtime. >>> >>> I'll try to find time to get to the rest of your message. I rarely if ever >>> use vertical inheritance, but I may try out your scenario. >>> >>> Andrus >>> >> >> Hi again, >> Ok after the big refactoring I am now able to test this and I get this >> exception on commit: >> "Cannot set the read-only flattened relationship 'toUser' in ObjEntity >> 'SessionLogWeb'." >> or >> "Cannot set the read-only flattened relationship 'runtimeRelationship1' in >> ObjEntity 'SessionLog'." >> depending on which side I try to use when setting the relationship. >> (SessionLogWeb is WebSession on my previous example and SessionLog is >> Session) >> >> So even if only one side of the relationship is marked as read only it is >> not possible to set the relationship from either side, as this kind of >> mapping is a bit unexplored using cayenne I will happily try any different >> options but I would like to mantain the vertical inheritance as this is a >> logging table that will hold millions of records so using a shared table >> will waste too much space. >> >> Thanks in advance. >> >> Ramiro Aparicio >> > >
