[teiid-designer-dev] Materialized Views

[Barry Lafond]

I think that's a decent idea, however, our new VDB framework does not use EMF anymore, so our built-in "build" framework that utilizes "validation rules" may not work. 

Currently we have no VDB-specific validation. 

JPAV, do our validation rules have to be implemented via EMF? and/or can they be applied to a simple IResource (i.e. xxxx.vdb file)? 

Barry 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Doyle" <jdoyle at redhat.com> 
To: "Barry Lafond" <blafond at redhat.com> 
Cc: "teiid-dev" <teiid-dev at lists.jboss.org>, "teiid-designer-dev" <teiid-designer-dev at lists.jboss.org> 
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 9:43:22 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central 
Subject: Re: [teiid-designer-dev] Materialized Views 



----- "Barry Lafond" <blafond at redhat.com> wrote: 
> 
> All, 
> 
...... 
> That all said, would it be wrong to NOT treat these Materialization Physical models as dependencies? Users would be totally responsible for including them in a VDB containing the original virtual models? 
> 
> Comments, ideas? 

While it certainly would be best to add them automatically like we do for other models, would it be possibly to flag a missing Materialization Physical model as a validation error on a VDB without changing the metamodel? Would that be good enough? 

> 
> Barry 
> 
> _______________________________________________ teiid-designer-dev mailing list teiid-designer-dev at lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/teiid-designer-dev 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/teiid-designer-dev/attachments/20100713/83f782cd/attachment.html