This thread looks to be a little on the old side and therefore may no longer be relevant. Please see if there is a newer thread on the subject and ensure you're using the most recent build of any software if your question regards a particular product.
This thread has been locked and is no longer accepting new posts, if you have a question regarding this topic please email us at support@mindscape.co.nz
|
When creating an auto Through Association, the association class falls automatically in the base namespace of the model and apparently, this can't be changed. We should be able to specify in which sub-namespace we want the class to belong. The only way to do that right now is to convert the association to an implicit one so that we can make the class visible and set its namespace as with any other "visible" class. Furthermore, if you convert back to an auto Through Association after setting the namespace as indicated above, the association class goes back into the base namespace for the model. Could you add a Namespace property to the association itself so that we can specify the namespace of the hidden class without cluttering the design diagram? Thanks, |
|
|
|
|
The point of auto through entities is to keep them simple -- they're for the case where you don't really care about the through entity. We therefore don't want to bog them down with all the options you have on a real entity. At the moment we don't feel that per-entity namespaces are sufficiently commonly used to justify offering them on such ultra-simple entities. If you need fine control over namespacing, you will need to use an explicit through entity. Sorry. One thing we could consider is if both of the "proper" entities in the through association are in the same sub-namespace, we could emit the auto through entity into that sub-namespace. I like the idea of doing this as it would keep related entities together, but it could have compatibility implications for existing customers though so we'll have to consider whether it is worth the risk. If we did do it, would that meet your requirement? |
|
|
|
|
Thanks for your response. I think that your last suggestion is a good one. It would partially meet my requirements. But if you think about it, allowing to specify the namespace through a property would completely mitigate the risk you mention with your second suggestion. In addition, it would be 100% backward compatible with any project created with prior versions of LightSpeed: no namespace specified = current behavior, namespace specified = emit it in that namespace regardless whether or not the classes are already in the same namespace. This being said, it's not such a big deal. The work-around is to make the through association implicit. That does not bother me too much. Yes, it's an extra step and yes it clutters the diagrams, but it gets the job done. Thanks for considering it, |
|
|
|
