Re: a HUGE Core Data bug
Re: a HUGE Core Data bug
- Subject: Re: a HUGE Core Data bug
- From: mmalc crawford <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 18:22:25 -0700
On Mar 12, 2007, at 9:24 AM, I. Savant wrote:
I've demonstrated a Core Data problem (that is documented), so the
problem exists, there is no reason to deny it.
Now *that's* surprising. Nobody said there weren't any problems.
We've all acknowledged that your example demonstrates a problem. The
part you seem to refuse to accept is that it's your error, not a
bug. As Jim explained, the behavior is undefined when there is no
inverse relationship. That is *not* a bug.
Actually there is no need to dilute (with "the behavior is undefined
when there is no inverse relationship") the assertion that "it's your
error, not a bug".
In this case, as noted in a previous post, the bug *is* in the code
sample.
It is *not* a problem with Core Data, it is *not* an issue with
"undefined behaviour", and it is *not* restricted to a particular
version of Mac OS X...
The model in the example specifies an optional to-many relationship.
Any given object can have multiple objects in the destination of a to-
many relationship.
This does *not* mean, however, that a given object can be in the
destination of a given to-many relationship for multiple objects.
Engineering has determined that this case "behaves correctly".
The documentation may be enhanced in future to cover this case,
however, to reiterate, there are already ample warnings and it is not
possible to enumerate all the possible ways you might mess up if you
don't abide by the guidelines and don't know what you're doing...
mmalc
_______________________________________________
Cocoa-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Do not post admin requests or moderator comments to the list.
Contact the moderators at cocoa-dev-admins(at)lists.apple.com
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden