• 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: mutually exclusive 1-to-0 or 1 relationship modeling
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: mutually exclusive 1-to-0 or 1 relationship modeling


  • Subject: Re: mutually exclusive 1-to-0 or 1 relationship modeling
  • From: Kieran Kelleher <email@hidden>
  • Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 14:27:51 -0500

You need to add foreign keys and don't propagate. Let EOF assign PKs as usual

Regards, Kieran.
(Sent from my iPhone)


On Jan 14, 2011, at 1:04 PM, Michael Gargano <email@hidden> wrote:

> The only question I have on this method is how do I propagate the primary key now?  If the modeler thinks it's a 1-to-many I can't check that box.  That's how this started to begin with.  I had them set as one-to-manies, but I didn't know how that pk should be propagated in code.
>
>
> On Jan 14, 2011, at 11:45 AM, Kieran Kelleher wrote:
>
>> one-to-one relationships can only be mandatory, and EOF *automatically* creates the B and C when you create A and propogates the primary key (a setting in the EOModel BTW) from A to B and A to C.
>>
>> The only way to set up an optional "1-to-1" is to create a 1-to-many in EOF,
>>
>>    A <-->> B
>>    A <-->> C
>>
>> and put methods in A to get and set singular B or C, returning null when empty toMany array.
>>
>> Enforce the zero or one count on the relationship in the database by making the foreignkey of A a unique index in tables B and C.
>>
>> The mutually exclusive rule can be checked in validateForSave.
>>
>> YMMV,
>>
>> Kieran
>>
>> On Jan 14, 2011, at 11:16 AM, Michael Gargano wrote:
>>
>>> I have three entities A, B, and C...
>>>
>>> A has a 1-to-0 or 1 with B
>>> and
>>> A has a 1-to-0 or 1 with C
>>>
>>> An entry in A either has an entry in B or an entry in C.  The two are mutually exclusive.  When I try to set this up in the modeler it gives me some problems.  Once I set a relationship as a one-to-one, the modeler won't let me select optional if optional is already unselected and the modeler generates a warning about having optional set if I edit the plist directly.  I'm not sure if I'm doing this correctly, but it looks to me like the modeler isn't allowing 1-to-0 or 1 relationships.
>>>
>>> So, if I just live with the warnings...
>>>
>>>    If I set the relationship between A and B and set the relationship to C to null (again because B and C are mutually exclusive), when I save changes it throws an exception complaining that all the properties in B are null.  Anyone else doing something like this?
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>> -Mike
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
 _______________________________________________
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: mutually exclusive 1-to-0 or 1 relationship modeling
      • From: Michael Gargano <email@hidden>
References: 
 >mutually exclusive 1-to-0 or 1 relationship modeling (From: Michael Gargano <email@hidden>)
 >Re: mutually exclusive 1-to-0 or 1 relationship modeling (From: Kieran Kelleher <email@hidden>)
 >Re: mutually exclusive 1-to-0 or 1 relationship modeling (From: Michael Gargano <email@hidden>)

  • Prev by Date: Re: Hudson and frameworks reference
  • Next by Date: Re: mutually exclusive 1-to-0 or 1 relationship modeling
  • Previous by thread: Re: mutually exclusive 1-to-0 or 1 relationship modeling
  • Next by thread: Re: mutually exclusive 1-to-0 or 1 relationship modeling
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread