[Opensim-dev] Please do not revert fixes without careful comtemplation

[Tommi Laukkanen]

Hello,

On second though we could keep the current structure and expose all fields
also through AssetBase properties. Then we could save / load the AssetBase
with nhibernate as a single object and leave out the Metadata  property from
NHibernate mapping. Does this sound good?

regards,
Tommi

On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 5:06 PM, Mike Mazur <mmazur at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 4:05 PM, Tommi Laukkanen
> <tommi.s.e.laukkanen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I was talking with mikkopa and he suggested we should create two tables
> to
> > cover AssetBase to solve this issue properly. Namely AssetMetadata for
> > metadata information and AssetData for blobs to avoid situation where we
> end
> > up accessing also the blob data just to read metadata.
>
> I was hoping not to have to do that.
>
> It should be straightforward to support the current
> AssetBase/AssetMetadata composition in the existing OpenSim data
> layers, but as sdague warned me earlier, by mapping multiple classes
> to one table I was entering a world of pain. Seems that's exactly
> what's happening with NHibernate.
>
> The reason I introduced the AssetMetadata class is to supply metadata
> information only for some requests that Cable Beach, the new asset
> server, supports. Now I realize that this was probably a premature
> optimization.
>
> Instead of modifying the DB schema, we could have AssetBase inherit
> from AssetMetadata, as I outlined before[1]. Alternatively, we could
> get rid of AssetMetadata altogether and store everything in AssetBase
> as before, splitting out the metadata sometime in the future when a
> use case warrants it.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
>
>
> [1]
> https://lists.berlios.de/pipermail/opensim-dev/2009-February/004918.html
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://opensimulator.org/pipermail/opensim-dev/attachments/20090214/18958e0f/attachment-0001.html>