trying to setup a config apply for a custom module - should i possess a unique model for every 'resourceModel', or can you really have multiple table organizations per model?

Can you really go such as this to operate:


    <config>...
 <model>
  <namespace>
    <class>Namespace_Module_Model</class>
    <resourceModel>module_mysq4</resourceModel>
  </namespace>
  <module_mysql4>
   <class>Namespace_Module_Model_Mysql4</class>
    <entities>
        <table_1>
            <table>table_1</table>
        </table_1>
        <table_2>
            <table>table_2</table>
        </table_2>
        <table_3>
            <table>table_3</table>
        </table_3>
        ...
    </entities>
   </module_mysql4>
..</config>

after which dynamically switch between your tables with the model?

and related: Anybody understand what the potential kids of the are as well as their properites? I have seen 'entities', 'associations' and 'items' - thx

It isn't really obvious what you are asking here. Magento includes a fundamental one resource to one table resource, along with a one resource to many tables built inside a specific manner resource for EAV style models.

The scenario you are explaining above is not directly based on the machine, but when you desired to implement something similar to it there is nothing preventing you against applying an origin that actually works in whatever way you would like.

For the potential children, produce the simple config viewer described here to obtain a dump from the entire merged config, after which make use of an xpath viewer to look at all of the nodes (as well as their children) that you are thinking about

Thx for that response &lifier apologies when the question was unclear. Following a couple of hrs of debugging, I've it dealing with the next structure:


<models>
  <modulename>
   <class>Namespace_Modulename_Model</class>
   <resourceModel>modulename_mysql4</resourceModel>
  </modulename>
  <modulename_type1>
   <class>Namespace_Modulename_Model_Type1</class>
   <resourceModel>modulename_mysql4</resourceModel>
  </modulename_type1>
   <modulename_type2>
   <class>Namespace_Modulename_Model_Type2</class>
   <resourceModel>modulename_mysql4</resourceModel>
  </modulename_type2>
  <modulename_mysql4>
   <class>Namespace_Modulename_Model_Mysql4</class>
   <entities>
    <modulename>
     <table>modulename</table>
    </modulename>
     <modulename_type1>
     <table>modulename_type1</table>
    </modulename_type1>
     <modulename__type2>
     <table>modulename_type2</table>
    </modulename_type2>
   </entities>
  </modulename_mysql4>

 </models>

So yes - there's just one table entity for every model declared (one model, one resource) however i might have assumed that every additional model/resourceModel combination would require it's own separate Model_Mysql class in it's own modulename_mysql4 node, ala:


<models>
 <modulename>
  <class>Namespace_Modulename_Model</class>
  <resourceModel>modulename_mysql4</resourceModel>
 </modulename>
 <modulename_type1>
  <class>Namespace_Modulename_Model_Type1</class>
  <resourceModel>modulename_mysql4_type1</resourceModel>
 </modulename_type1>
  <modulename_type2>
  <class>Namespace_Modulename_Model_Type2</class>
  <resourceModel>modulename_mysql4_type2</resourceModel>
 </modulename_type2>
 <modulename_mysql4>
  <class>Namespace_Modulename_Model_Mysql4</class>
  <entities>
   <modulename>
    <table>modulename</table>
   </modulename>
  </entities>
 </modulename_mysql4>
 <modulename_mysql4_type1>
  <class>Namespace_Modulename_Model_Mysql4_Type1</class>
  <entities>
    <modulename_type1>
    <table>modulename_type1</table>
   </modulename_type1>
  </entities>
 </modulename_mysql4_type1>
 <modulename_mysql4_type2>
  <class>Namespace_Modulename_Model_Mysql_Type2</class>
  <entities>
    <modulename_type2>
    <table>modulename_type2</table>
   </modulename_type2>
  </entities>
 </modulename_mysql4_type2>
</models>

but that's not the situation. Would like to hear a abide by play explanation. Thx for that help!