Re: Inverse to-one relationships
Re: Inverse to-one relationships
- Subject: Re: Inverse to-one relationships
- From: Paul Hoadley <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 07:15:09 +0930
On 22/07/2010, at 11:42 PM, Ramsey Gurley wrote:
> One-to-optional-one relationship... Not doable as far as I know. In another discussion on the topic, Chuck Hill suggested:
>
>> You could model it as a right-outer join and optional, but I think that EOF is still going to have a hissy fit when it does not find the row. Worth a try and a good bug to log with Apple if it does not work.
>>
>> Chuck
>
> Great idea. I gave that a shot, but it didn't work.
>
> Beyond that, I've considered modeling a typical one-to-many, applying a unique constraint to the FK, creating a method to get/set the relationship, and then register a custom EOClassDescription to replace the reported toMany with my getter/setter toOne. I haven't tried the custom EOClassDescription bit yet though.
Thanks Ramsey. That's pretty much what I thought.
--
Paul.
http://logicsquad.net/
_______________________________________________
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