• Open Menu Close Menu
  • Apple
  • Shopping Bag
  • Apple
  • Mac
  • iPad
  • iPhone
  • Watch
  • TV
  • Music
  • Support
  • Search apple.com
  • Shopping Bag

Lists

Open Menu Close Menu
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Lists hosted on this site
  • Email the Postmaster
  • Tips for posting to public mailing lists
Re: Relation oddity
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Relation oddity


  • Subject: Re: Relation oddity
  • From: Christian Pekeler <email@hidden>
  • Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 10:59:25 -0600

I believe that a distinction needs to be made between no inverse relationship and an inverse relationship that's not marked as a class property. By making the to-many inverse relationship not a class property, EOF won't use it to keep the object graph consistent (i.e., it won't fetch those 1,000,000 objects), but I think EOF may still use this inverse relationship in ways that can be beneficial. So I always include inverse relationships in my eomodels but don't mark as class properties those to-many inverse relationships that might cause unacceptable fetching activity. Seems to work well for me.

That's an interesting conjecture. Are you aware of any reference documentation or experimental results to support this position? It seems equally likely (in my current state of ignorance) to provide beneficial results, to simply consume extra unused resources or to have no discernible effect. If beneficial results, I'd love to know what they are. If extra unused resource consumption, then we'd all probably be better to avoid the distinction as well as the inverse relationship.

IIRC, earlier versions of EOF used to acknowledge delete rules on non- property relationships. So you could mark that "1,000,000 objects to- many" as non-property and still set it for delete-deny or delete- cascade, which was very useful. Unfortunately, that doesn't work anymore. So unless you need that relationship to flatten another relationship, non-property relationships don't seem to be useful, AFAIK.


I've filed a bug about this over three years ago. Just checked the status - is still "Open." I've given up hope on that one...


Christian

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

 _______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list      (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:

This email sent to email@hidden

  • Follow-Ups:
    • Re: Relation oddity
      • From: Mike Schrag <email@hidden>
References: 
 >Re: Relation oddity (From: email@hidden)
 >Re: Relation oddity (From: Art Isbell <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Relation oddity (From: "Jerry W. Walker" <email@hidden>)

  • Prev by Date: Re: Relation oddity
  • Next by Date: Re: Relation oddity
  • Previous by thread: Re: Relation oddity
  • Next by thread: Re: Relation oddity
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread