On 23/07/2010, at 12:09 AM, Chuck Hill wrote: >> I know this topic comes up on the list from time to time, but I just need a >> quick sanity check. > > Nope, not sane. :-)
Well spotted. Now on with this: >> I have two entities, A and B. For every A, there is a corresponding B. For >> some subset of all Bs, each has a corresponding A. Currently I have >> modelled this with a single relationship from A to B, so that's a mandatory >> to-one relationship. (Alternatively, I could have modelled it with an >> optional to-one relationship from B to A.) > > 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. -- Paul. http://logicsquad.net/
_______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to arch...@mail-archive.com
