Re: Mapping multiple EOs to one table
Re: Mapping multiple EOs to one table
- Subject: Re: Mapping multiple EOs to one table
- From: Chuck Hill <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 13:09:21 -0700
At 02:58 PM 20/08/2003 -0500, Ricardo Strausz wrote:
>>> Sure! but in the parent are all atributes of both (all) childs...
>>> The only thing to care here ---as far as my experiment goes--- is to
>>> put the "common" logic in the parent object (I mean here, the logic
>>> which makes sense when "seeing" the holl row at once)...
>>>
>>> Does this makes some sense to you?
>>>
>> While it might work it sort of offends my sense of OO design. :-) A
>> big reason for sub-classing is refinement of behaviour. What you are
>> doing kills that. Yes, it will be OK if you always treat the objects
>> as the parent object, but then what does that achieve? If this does
>> what you want, fine by me.
>
>But then, how is STM supposed to be managed?
>I'm getting confused!
>
What does STM mean? I'm not familiar with that acronym.
Chuck
--
Chuck Hill email@hidden
Global Village Consulting Inc. http://www.global-village.net
_______________________________________________
webobjects-dev mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives: http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/webobjects-dev
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.