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 08:09:17 +0930
On 23/07/2010, at 7:42 AM, Chuck Hill wrote:
>>> 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.
>
> Where are the FKs? B hold's A's PK as an FK?
Yes, and vice versa. Only difference is that B to A is optional (parent can have zero children), A to B is mandatory (child must have a parent).
> They both have the same PK?
No. (Would this help?)
--
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