Burke, S (Stephen) wrote:
also here... I think Riccardo is right. The association from StorageShare to DataStore should be changed from StorageShare to StorageResource... alternatively, we can add in parallel if people really want to discover the type of data store on which a storage share is
configured.
I think we should keep the Share - Datastore relation as you can't deduce it in general if you only have Share - Resource. Maybe we could add a Share - Resource relation as well - but do we need it explicitly in the model if it's implied by the existing relations?
in the current modeling, it cannot be implied because storageResource is associated to a dataStore via a many-to-many relationship. It would have been possible in this case: storageResource 1--* dataStore Cheers, Sergio