On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 4:05 PM, dan wrote:
>
>>
>> If a model A has a foreign key on model B, then the table for A
>> requires a field to track the relation. However, if model B has a
>> "many to one" on A table A requires a field.
>
> sorry, can you clarify that for
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 4:05 AM, dan wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> I think what the original question is asking is, can the definition of
> Parent have a "one-to-many" which points to Child? At the database
> level there would be no difference: Child would still have the foreign
>
>
> If a model A has a foreign key on model B, then the table for A
> requires a field to track the relation. However, if model B has a
> "many to one" on A table A requires a field.
>
sorry, can you clarify that for me? - specifically: "model A has a
foreign key on model B" - which
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 10:12 PM, Jonas Obrist wrote:
>
> In the documentation I see that there are Many-To-One Fields,
> Many-To-Many Fields and One-To-One Fields. What about a One-To-Many
> Field? You might now say that this is completely pointless since a
> Many-To-One
In the documentation I see that there are Many-To-One Fields,
Many-To-Many Fields and One-To-One Fields. What about a One-To-Many
Field? You might now say that this is completely pointless since a
Many-To-One Field reversed is basically what I want. But I'd say that in
some cases it makes