Personally I think it is maybe better to getting it working first the
way the persisters expect it currently. Addressing changes inside the
persister is a next step, but I did not want to "dirty the waters" in
terms of trying to implement this new metamodel while both the producers
and consumers are in flux (one in flux at a time is enough in my
original estimation).
Just my $.02
On 12/06/2012 10:37 AM, Strong Liu wrote:
having a design question, how should we model this
(correct me if I get this wrong)
for this inheritance hierarchy, the relational model of root entity is pushed to the sub
entity, so the table of sub entity has all "root table" columns / pk
and depends on if root entity is abstract, there may or may not having a physical table
for the root entity
we used this org.hibernate.mapping.DenormalizedTable to model a union subclass table, and
also the Table class has a org.hibernate.mapping.Table#isPhysicalTable to tell schema tool
if this table should be created or not
For the new Metamodel, as Gail and I discussed, we don't want to have some fake table
even for the abstract root entity, NULL for the return value of
EntityBinding.getPrimaryTable() is better and clean design.
but on the other hand, the DenormalizedTable design is quite simple to impl in the Binder
( I already get it works ), esp considering we bind root entity first and don't have
second pass.
wdyt?
-------------------------
Best Regards,
Strong Liu <stliu at hibernate.org>
http://about.me/stliu/bio
_______________________________________________
hibernate-dev mailing list
hibernate-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev