Re: modeling problem
Re: modeling problem
- Subject: Re: modeling problem
- From: TW <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 15:05:14 -0700
On Mar 30, 2009, at 2:16 PM, Chuck Hill wrote:
On Mar 30, 2009, at 1:58 PM, TW wrote:
Thanks Chuck:
On Mar 30, 2009, at 1:18 PM, Chuck Hill wrote:
On Mar 29, 2009, at 4:48 PM, TW wrote:
All:
I have a model of our ldap directory with InetOrgPerson the base
"user" entity. I've made InetOrgPerson abstract with it's table
inetOrgPerson. I have the framework project containing that model
in the build path of another that I'm using as a "generic user"
framework.
In that second framework I have another model with a
"GenericUser" entity. That entity has "InetOrgPerson" as it's
parent. I've added this second framework to my app build path.
- in Entity Modeler if I set the table for "GenericUser" to
"inetOrgPerson" (the same as it's parent), my app fetches 2
identical GenericUser EO's for each 1 matching record in LDAP
That is because you have set up Single Table Inheritance BUT not
added any restricting qualifier on either entity. Are you certain
that InetOrgPerson is marked as abstract? Check it again...
InetOrgPerson is definitely checked "Abstract" in my OD model.
I have never tried this without a restricting qualifier on one of
them.
You could try adding a restricting qualifier of (1 = 0) on
InetOrgPerson.
I didn't think I needed a restricting qualifier if the parent was
abstract. I do get errors requiring a restricting qualifier if
InetOrgPerson is _not_ abstract.
This sounds like a bug to me right now, please* bugreport.apple.com
My goal was to have an entity/class (where InetOrgPerson is super)
in a "middle" framework that can be used to wrap a relationship
between ldap user and database employee (each modeled in their own
frameworks). So, the way I have it set up there's really no
difference between InetOrgPerson and GenericUser except that
GenericUser has the relationship to <database employee> and
InetOrgPerson does not.
I still wonder if GenericUser should have a relationship to both
InetOrgPerson and DatabaseEmployee.
With that approach, it sounds like GenericUser would have to have it's
own data table separate from the other two?
T
I'm trying to abstract everything so that I can pick and choose
what gets used on a per app basis.
- if I change the table for "GenericUser to "GenericUser" it
works as expected. However, there is no such "table" or object in
my LDAP directory. And I'm concerned that with that setup
attempts to write to the directory would fail.
It should be OK like that. That is Vertical Inheritance which may
have its own issues.
Well, I'm willing to tackle those issues when I encounter them if
this should work. Fetches are currently working if I leave it as is
and I'm not currently using any WO apps to create GenericUser or
InetOrgPerson EO's.
Careful, that VI stuff can be dodgy.
Chuck
The first way seems that it should be the proper way to do it but
I don't understand why I'm getting two EO's for each record. Can
someone point me to what I'm being dumb about?
I am not sure that the first way is correct. What if you then add
data to GenericUser? It sort of feels like InetOrgPerson ought to
be relationship from GenericUser, not the parent.
Chuck
--
Chuck Hill Senior Consultant / VP Development
Practical WebObjects - for developers who want to increase their
overall knowledge of WebObjects or who are trying to solve specific
problems.
http://www.global-village.net/products/practical_webobjects
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden