You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.

Posted to dev@isis.apache.org by ro...@equate.nl on 2011/01/19 12:46:06 UTC

Relations (NO book continued)

Dan,

I read your reply to Mike about car.setOwningCustomer(). vs 
car.clearOwningCustomer(). 

I was wondering why you don't take the opportunity to implement Relations 
as a separate construct? This would avoid such circular dependencies and 
concentrate knowledge pertaining to the relation in one artefact.

Gr,
Rob van der Horst

Re: Relations (NO book continued)

Posted by Mike Burton <mi...@mycosystems.co.uk>.

Hi Rob,

My gut feel is that this would be too complex. A separate Relation object is fine for a many-to-many relationship but too heavyweight if we needed one for every 1-1 or 1-m relationship.

Best Regards

Mike Burton

On 19 Jan 2011, at 11:46, rob@equate.nl wrote:

> Dan,
> 
> I read your reply to Mike about car.setOwningCustomer(). vs 
> car.clearOwningCustomer(). 
> 
> I was wondering why you don't take the opportunity to implement Relations 
> as a separate construct? This would avoid such circular dependencies and 
> concentrate knowledge pertaining to the relation in one artefact.
> 
> Gr,
> Rob van der Horst