• 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: Fat relationships: i.e. user <--->> transactions
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Fat relationships: i.e. user <--->> transactions


  • Subject: Re: Fat relationships: i.e. user <--->> transactions
  • From: Patrick Middleton <email@hidden>
  • Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 17:53:22 +0000


On 5 Dec 2007, at 17:17, Pierce T. Wetter III wrote:



...
"addToBothSidesOfRelationship"
...



It turns out to be almost never the case that you want to fetch all "Open Tasks". It tends to be the case for us that you almost always want to have additional qualifiers on those searches, which ends up that you fault a HUGE (many thousands) of EO's in just to turn back around and filter them down in memory. Instead, I can remove that relationship completely and provide just the variant of the to-many that takes a qualifier.

Of course not and I agree 100%. But the example was user <- >>transactions which *I* would not fetch manually unless I had problems with multiple instances.


And the case above would normally be in an SEC which would have no outgoing relations anyway.

Well, it was my example, so I'll chime in (and change the subject)
...

The _admin_ side often does. So I'm glad to hear there's a fix for the NSArray O(N^2) issue, that was in old Obj-C EOF as well.


So removing the inverse relationship from a fat to-many isn't always an option if you need one in one place, and another in a different place.

A pure EOF solution would be to dynamically define the to many side of
user ->>transactions relationship at runtime, based on the particular application's needs.


That was one of the nice things about Obj-C categories...I could load certain code in only certain places.
...

Suddenly I am reminded of some ObjC code I posted to this list on Apr 19 ("Re: AddObjectToBothSidesOfRelationshipWithkey") -- how to manipulate relationships in a clean(ish) fully EOF 4.5.1 way that avoids unnecessary firing of array faults.

--
Patrick Middleton
OneStep Solutions plc
351 London Road             Phone: +44 (0)1702 426400
Hadleigh                    Fax:   +44 (0)1702 556855
Essex. SS7 2BT              Email: email@hidden
England                            (MIME welcome)

_______________________________________________
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: Fat relationships: i.e. user <--->> transactions
      • From: Joe Moreno <email@hidden>
References: 
 >Java Packages for Dummies (From: Owen McKerrow <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Java Packages for Dummies (From: Chuck Hill <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Java Packages for Dummies (From: Owen McKerrow <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Java Packages for Dummies (From: "Pierce T. Wetter III" <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Java Packages for Dummies (From: Mike Schrag <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Java Packages for Dummies (From: David Avendasora <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Java Packages for Dummies (From: Anjo Krank <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Java Packages for Dummies (From: Mike Schrag <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Java Packages for Dummies (From: Anjo Krank <email@hidden>)
 >Fat relationships: i.e. user <--->> transactions (From: "Pierce T. Wetter III" <email@hidden>)

  • Prev by Date: Getting EOGenericRecord when I don't want it...
  • Next by Date: Re: Getting EOGenericRecord when I don't want it...
  • Previous by thread: Fat relationships: i.e. user <--->> transactions
  • Next by thread: Re: Fat relationships: i.e. user <--->> transactions
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread