Back in the old days, an attribute named description would cause you
grief. ;-)
-- Mark
On Jan 25, 2009, at 9:50 AM, James Cicenia wrote:
Don't feel so bad. I once named a component Request. Took me a
whole day to finally figure out it was the name of the component
that fubar'd it.
Doesn't it still? I NEVER use it :)
On Jan 26, 2009, at 4:22 PM, Mark Morris wrote:
Back in the old days, an attribute named description would cause
you grief. ;-)
-- Mark
On Jan 25, 2009, at 9:50 AM, James Cicenia wrote:
Don't feel so bad. I once named a component Request. Took me a
That was (is) the NSObject's version of toString, so I think it might
be okay now that we're in Javaland. But I never use it either, out of
habit
-- Mark
On Jan 26, 2009, at 3:24 PM, Ken Anderson wrote:
Doesn't it still? I NEVER use it :)
On Jan 26, 2009, at 4:22 PM, Mark Morris
And don't use 'desc' instead - messes up Oracle! I always use
'descr' :)
On Jan 26, 2009, at 4:30 PM, Mark Morris wrote:
That was (is) the NSObject's version of toString, so I think it
might be okay now that we're in Javaland. But I never use it
either, out of habit
-- Mark
On
The JDBC API provides:
DatabaseMetaData dbMetaData = connection.getMetaData();
dbMetaData.getIdentifierQuoteString();
to quote reserved words. I think EOF uses the appropriate quotes based
on the reserved words in the model.
JR
On Jan 26, 2009, at 3:36 PM, Ken Anderson
That depends on the plug-in, not all of them quote.
Chuck
On Jan 26, 2009, at 1:43 PM, JR Ruggentaler wrote:
The JDBC API provides:
DatabaseMetaData dbMetaData = connection.getMetaData();
dbMetaData.getIdentifierQuoteString();
to quote reserved words. I think EOF uses the
On 27/01/2009, at 8:24 AM, Ken Anderson wrote:
Doesn't it still? I NEVER use it :)
I believe it's still the case... unless that was Entity Modeler
complaining. Can't recall.
On Jan 26, 2009, at 4:22 PM, Mark Morris wrote:
Back in the old days, an attribute named description would cause
Entity Modeler USED to (maybe still does) warn about this ... If you
look at EOEnterpriseObject, there's:
String eoDescription() -- Returns a String that describes the receiver.
so maybe it was renamed? I think I dodged description for a really
long time until someone said you don't have
Hi!
Do I see here a nice feature for the WOLips modeler? A new warning
like the attribute name whatever may cause conflits with all the
underlying stuff?
Yours
Miguel Arroz
On 2009/01/26, at 21:49, Chuck Hill wrote:
That depends on the plug-in, not all of them quote.
Chuck
On
Mike Schrag wrote:
I think I dodged description for a really long time until someone
said you don't have to a year or so ago ... probably was Chuck.
Pre-Wonder, I happily created entity() relationships in three
projects/EOs. Post-Wonder, not so happily renamed them to entitee()
which
Do I see here a nice feature for the WOLips modeler? A new warning
like the attribute name whatever may cause conflits with all the
underlying stuff?
We already do have a bunch of these, actually.
ms
___
Do not post admin requests to the list.
On Jan 26, 2009, at 2:34 PM, Mike Schrag wrote:
Entity Modeler USED to (maybe still does) warn about this ... If you
look at EOEnterpriseObject, there's:
String eoDescription() -- Returns a String that describes the
receiver.
so maybe it was renamed? I think I dodged description for a
String attributes called description are ok, and EOGenericRecord is
ok with relationships called description. However ERXGenericRecord
has a method description() which returns toString() hence you can't
call a relationship description or it tries to override the return
type and gives a
On Jan 26, 2009, at 6:03 PM, D Tim Cummings wrote:
String attributes called description are ok, and EOGenericRecord
is ok with relationships called description. However
ERXGenericRecord has a method description() which returns toString()
hence you can't call a relationship description or
I'd bet that is still from pre-Wonder ERX. And it was probably there
because of the move from 4.0-5.0.
Cheers, Anjo
Am 27.01.2009 um 03:36 schrieb Chuck Hill:
On Jan 26, 2009, at 6:03 PM, D Tim Cummings wrote:
String attributes called description are ok, and EOGenericRecord
is ok with
Anyone know why I can't have a relationship called 'members'?
When I have a flattened many-to-many where one of the relationships is
called 'members' and I try to add an object to the relationship with
addObjectToBothSidesOfRelationshipWithKey(obj, members) I get the
following cryptic error
Anyone know why I can't have a relationship called 'members'?
When I have a flattened many-to-many where one of the relationships is
called 'members' and I try to add an object to the relationship with
addObjectToBothSidesOfRelationshipWithKey(obj, members) I get the
following cryptic error
Hi!
Are you sure you didn't have a spelling mistake? There's no method
or anything that might be accessible via key-value called members on
EOGenericRecord.
Yours
Miguel Arroz
On 2009/01/25, at 11:17, Jake MacMullin wrote:
Anyone know why I can't have a relationship called
Don't feel so bad. I once named a component Request. Took me a
whole day to finally figure out it was the name of the component that
fubar'd it.
-James
On Jan 25, 2009, at 6:22 AM, Miguel Arroz wrote:
Hi!
Are you sure you didn't have a spelling mistake? There's no method
or anything
19 matches
Mail list logo
