incubator-graffito-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alexandru Popescu <the.mindstorm.mailingl...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: OCM - Inheritance & Interface
Date Thu, 16 Feb 2006 20:33:31 GMT
#: Christophe Lombart changed the world a bit at a time by saying (astral date: 2/16/2006 9:22
PM) :#
> On 2/16/06, Alexandru Popescu <the.mindstorm.mailinglist@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> Trying to clarify the my proposal: I was questioning what would be the behavior you
expect when the
>> following scenario happens:
>>
>> a class is mapped to a node type X, and the real node to which the action (update
or get) happens
>> has a node type Y, where Y is a supertype of X.
>>
> 
> 
> If I understand you have the class Freelance inherits from Worker.
> Freelance  is mapped to the node type nt:freelance and Worker is
> mapped to nt:worker. One Freelance object is used to update a node
> based on nt:worker. Is it correct ?
> 
> IMHPOV, This can not  be used in real application. I don't see when we
> can have this kind of situation. Maybe I'm a little bit tired.
> 
> 
>> Unfortunately this time I could not follow you. The scenarios you are providing are
the current
>> behavior or what you would expect to happen?
>>
> 
> Following my previous mail,  I think scenario 2 et 3  are not yet
> possible with our current implementation.
> 
> --
> Best regards,
> 
> Christophe
> 

Hi Chris!

I would like to kindly ask you to review this thread later. I am not asking about the current

behavior. I was trying to figure out what would be the expected behavior. I more interested
in the 
expected behavior. The current one is in the code, is quite simple and sometimes wrong :-).
But, at 
this moment we are looking for what the behavior must be.

cheers,

./alex
--
.w( the_mindstorm )p.


Mime
View raw message