Re: [SQLObject] thoughts on structure and components

[Ian B. <ia...@co...>]

On Mon, 2003-05-12 at 10:39, Bud P.Bruegger wrote:
> > Now, if I'm reading it right, this would be the most significant
> > difference with SQLObject -- a mapping object is a separate from the
> > class.  But why?  
> 
> Ian, I made some progress and I can more clearly answer to the
> question above:
> 
> In this approach, relationships are instances managed by Mapping, not
> part of the "class" (of the storable application object).  This way,
> to keep object references from the relationship object to the
> contained (from, to..) "table objects" (that I call ObjMap).  I can
> also keep back-references from ObjMap to all the relations that
> reference it.  
> 
> This way, I avoid (at least it seems at the moment) all problems of
> circular dependencies, referencing to objects only by name, etc.  

I'm still not really clear what you're thinking.  Can you show how you
might define a class, using a mapping?

  Ian