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 07:19:33 +0930
On 23/07/2010, at 12:09 AM, Chuck Hill wrote: I know this topic comes up on the list from time to time, but I just need a quick sanity check.
Nope, not sane. :-)
Well spotted. Now on with this:
I have two entities, A and B. For every A, there is a corresponding B. For some subset of all Bs, each has a corresponding A. Currently I have modelled this with a single relationship from A to B, so that's a mandatory to-one relationship. (Alternatively, I could have modelled it with an optional to-one relationship from B to A.)
How are you modeling these relationships?
Originally, just this: a mandatory, to-one relationship from A to B. Consider it to be a parent (B) with optional child (A). Every child has a parent (hence the current mandatory to-one from A to B), and every parent has zero or one child. So I've tacked on an optional to-one relationship from B to A to model the latter. I take it there's no way to convince EOF that these relationships are inverses, and get the convenience of updating both sides of the relationship at the same time.
|
_______________________________________________
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