On Jul 22, 2010, at 2:49 PM, Paul Hoadley wrote: > 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.
Where are the FKs? B hold's A's PK as an FK? They both have the same PK? Chuck -- 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
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list ([email protected]) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [email protected]
