Re: Modeling an optional to-one relationship
Re: Modeling an optional to-one relationship
- Subject: Re: Modeling an optional to-one relationship
- From: Lon Varscsak <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 15:21:10 -0700
heh, it's not. :) I also don't believe that sometimes having an
optional to-one is always a "thing to fix". However, I do understand
now that EOF doesn't handle this case much better than it did in WO4.
-Lon
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Mark Ritchie <email@hidden> wrote:
> On 14/Jan/2010, at 10:41 AM, Tom M.Blenko wrote:
>> I think you need a better example because I'm left wondering how/when PartAttribute and Part rows get created and deleted. If some process outside your control is doing that the to-many is off the table and there are other issues that need to be addressed. If there aren't other processes outside your control, why not right the wrongs of the original design?
>
> Here here! Changing the unlaying structure would certainly be preferable if that's an option. ;-)
> M.
>
_______________________________________________
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