+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