On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 08:33:07 -0300, John Lenton <jl...@gm...> wrote:
> On 08 Oct 2004 10:58:04 +0200, Sebastien Bigaret
>
>
> <sbi...@us...> wrote:
> >
> > John Lenton <jl...@gm...> wrote:
> > > to test one of the patches I'd need a model to have a relation to an
> > > entity that has subclasses; although StoreEmployee has such a relation
> > > (Holidays <<-> Employee), it doesn't define the toOne side of that
> > > relation, and I notice that is used to test exactly that feature.
> > > Should I create a new model that has these properties, or do I add a,
> > > say, 'Salary' class?
> >
> > Yes, go for it and modify the model. Maybe a BankAccount class could
> > make more sense? Okay, anyway that's a test model, so the semantics is
> > not that important :)
>
> last night I uploaded a patch that called it 'Salary', but I'll rename
> it to 'BankAccount' in a while.
I forgot to say this: I uploaded a patch because I already had it
ready, and although I have time to create these patches, I don't have
a lot of time, so sometimes I get impatient and don't wait as much as
I should for the answers, and go with what I think best at the time; I
can always revisit the decision later, but this way I can move ahead
(still got a ways to go).
--
John Lenton (jl...@gm...) -- Random fortune:
bash: fortune: command not found
|
