Order of table defs matters?


Maybe this is an easy question, but I'm using Sterling in my phone project and I create new table defs as I develop and add more support for it.

Does the order in which you list the table definitions matter? I have two singleton settings models, DbSettings and LocalSettings, and at first I had LocalSettings defined first. Then a little later, I added the DbSettings definition above it.

Now Sterling throws an exception if I try to load the DbSettings saying it cannot cast LocalSettings to DbSettings.

Is this expected behavior? I didn't see order of table definitions mentioned in the docs. I assumed it did lookups based on the type of the table.


petermorlion wrote Mar 7, 2013 at 9:18 AM

I quickly wrote a unit test to test this, and it didn't fail. From what I see in the code, it shouldn't be a problem. I will test this further, but are you doing anything special with te types DbSettings and LocalSettings (inheritance?)? Which version of SterlingDB are you using?