Re: Why is it wrong to have relationships without an inverse in Core Data?
Re: Why is it wrong to have relationships without an inverse in Core Data?
- Subject: Re: Why is it wrong to have relationships without an inverse in Core Data?
- From: Flavio Donadio <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 11:49:53 -0300
* Re-sending because of wrong subject line - Sorry! *
Hello, people!
After reading all this thread and watching it deviate from the problem at hand into a philosophical argument, I think it's time to answer the unanswered question...
Rick Mann, I don't understand why you need a separate relationship to retrieve the active Child objects. Please, consider doing this:
Parent
children to-many to Child
Child
parent to-one to Parent
active (boolean)
And then create an activeChildren: method in Parent with returns only the active children.
Sorry if this is not acceptable. I am just trying to help.
Cheers,
Flavio
On 24/06/2013, at 04:07, email@hidden wrote:
> On Jun 23, 2013, at 09:11 , Gordon Apple <email@hidden> wrote:
>
>> On the original question asked in this thread, I have several similar
>> places where I use a root object to also persist an object selection in the
>> referenced collection. I could not see burdening the collection objects
>> with another inverse relationship, so I just let these dangle, and ignore
>> the compiler¹s complaints, because this is something that can usually be
>> recovered from if there is a problem.
_______________________________________________
Cocoa-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Please 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