We have a model in which we need to represent CreditCardInfo for both a users saved preferences (on file) and for a CustomerOrder. In order to do this we've done the following:

class CreditCardInfo { ... }

class CreditCardPref : CreditCardInfo { /* NOTHING */ }
class CreditCardPayment : CreditCardInfo { /* NOTHING */ }

class CustomerPreferences {
CreditCardPref { get; set; }
}

class Order {
CreditCardPayment { get; set; }
}

we do this so that we can mp the CreditCardPref and CreditCardPayment to different tables. We don't want changes to the CreditCardPref to change historic Orders, obviously. It would seem that there could be a way to use the CreditCardInfo class to map both and not have the intermediate inheritence. Is there a way? Are we on the right track?

Hi,

I don't think you can map a single class to two tables. You could do what you are currently doing (I think it will work OK).

Personally, I would use two separate classes (even if they share a lot of the same properties) rather than inheritance. Inheritance is used to indicate an "is a" relationship, but I suspect the classes you are describing (while sharing properties) aren't really subclasses of each other IMHO.

Regards,
Richard