I'm also +1 but maybe better to wait after 0.11 no ?
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew(a)apache.org>
wrote:
+1 on that!
Should we do that for the 0.11 ? Or after?
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Karel Piwko <kpiwko(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> +1 on not having separate table per variant type and using different
> inheritance model here - for instance a discriminator column.
>
> Karel
>
> On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 15:14:21 +0200
> Erik Jan de Wit <edewit(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Right now the domain model of the UnifiedPush Server has the variants
> split
> > into separate collections.
> >
> >
>
https://github.com/edewit/aerogear-unifiedpush-server/blob/master/model/a...
> >
> > This could be improved to only use one collection, we’ll get more
> > extendibility (adding another variant type for instance) and remove
> code like
> > this:
> >
> >
>
https://github.com/edewit/aerogear-unifiedpush-server/blob/master/model/j...
> >
> > In places where you only want the iOS variants for instance you could
> either
> > query them, or have a getter that collects them by type.
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Erik Jan
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> aerogear-dev mailing list
> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
blog:
http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions:
http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter:
http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev