|author||Boris Kolpackov <firstname.lastname@example.org>||2015-03-13 17:02:29 +0200|
|committer||Boris Kolpackov <email@example.com>||2015-03-13 17:02:29 +0200|
Add feaure: Ability not to generate schema for certain objects/containers
1 files changed, 23 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/feature/list b/feature/list
index 9544186..5206ca3 100644
@@ -1,3 +1,26 @@
+! Ability not to generate schema for certain objects/containers
+ Sometimes it can be useful to overlay an object onto existing
+ (or another object/container) table. This is possible now for
+ object if one is careful with order but not for containers.
+ Perhaps an explicit no_schema pragma?
+ Once this is fixed, diagnose using of abstract classes in views.
+ See email from <firstname.lastname@example.org>/13-Mar-2015.
+! Primary key in to-many container table
+ Can we add 'unique' (similar to 'unordered') to container of object
+ pointers data member that says no duplicate pointers. We can then
+ generate a primary key based on the two ids. In fact, should we not
+ do this by default?
+ The other way to achieve the same end result would be via the support
+ for container indexes (i.e., add unique index based on the two).
+ See email from <CWeiguan@dso.org.sg>/13-Feb-2015.
! Virtual data member only handle simple type specification
Right now there is no way to say virtual(void*) or virtual(nullable<int>).