• 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: Inverse to-one relationships
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Inverse to-one relationships


  • Subject: Re: Inverse to-one relationships
  • From: Chuck Hill <email@hidden>
  • Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 07:22:46 -0700

On Jul 23, 2010, at 7:14 AM, Ramsey Gurley wrote:
> On Jul 22, 2010, at 9:17 PM, Paul Hoadley wrote:
>> On 23/07/2010, at 10:20 AM, Chuck Hill wrote:
>>
>>>> 1.  It only works when I call a.addObjectToBothSidesOfRelationshipWithKey(b, "b").  (Don't get me wrong—that's great, an enormous improvement on what I was doing 5 minutes ago.)
>>>
>>> Did you add versions of this method to both entities?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>>> I've got Wonder's updateInverseRelationships property set true, but it doesn't seem to be automatically updating this relationship.  (It is working as designed on others.)  In fact, inverseForRelationshipKey() isn't even being called, unless I manually call addObjectToBothSidesOfRelationshipWithKey().  Is this expected?
>>>
>>> I don't know.
>>
>> OK.  I'll work around it.
>>
>>>> 2.  Slightly more academic: why did everything I had read previously make me think this wouldn't work?  I had also read that post from Chuck quoted in this thread by Ramsey:
>>>>
>>>>> 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, were you talking about something else there?  (Presumably the answer is: I was mis-reading everything, and I didn't describe the problem clearly enough for Ramsey!)
>>>
>>> I am pretty sure that was referring to a PK - PK relationship when the PK is propagated from the parent to the child.
>>
>> Ah, OK.  Well, this has all ended quite nicely.  Thanks all.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Paul.
>>
>> http://logicsquad.net/
>>
>
> Nice trick Chuck (^_^) You are awesome!

It is not me, it is EOF that is awesome.  I just remember the specifics.  ;-)


Chuck


> And it seems so simple now, I wonder why I didn't try it sooner. This appears to work in both directions for me. I must have looked through 10 years of archived list messages and never found an answer to this one.
>
> Anyway, thank you again Chuck and thank you too Paul for asking the question one more time.
>
> Ramsey
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

--
Chuck Hill             Senior Consultant / VP Development

Practical WebObjects - for developers who want to increase their overall knowledge of WebObjects or who are trying to solve specific problems.
http://www.global-village.net/products/practical_webobjects







Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

 _______________________________________________
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: Inverse to-one relationships
      • From: David Avendasora <email@hidden>
References: 
 >Inverse to-one relationships (From: Paul Hoadley <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Inverse to-one relationships (From: David Avendasora <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Inverse to-one relationships (From: Paul Hoadley <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Inverse to-one relationships (From: Chuck Hill <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Inverse to-one relationships (From: Paul Hoadley <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Inverse to-one relationships (From: Chuck Hill <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Inverse to-one relationships (From: Paul Hoadley <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Inverse to-one relationships (From: Chuck Hill <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Inverse to-one relationships (From: Paul Hoadley <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Inverse to-one relationships (From: Ramsey Gurley <email@hidden>)

  • Prev by Date: Re: Inverse to-one relationships
  • Next by Date: Re: (dead)locking of EC and OSC
  • Previous by thread: Re: Inverse to-one relationships
  • Next by thread: Re: Inverse to-one relationships
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread