On 23/07/2010, at 7:32 AM, Chuck Hill wrote: > On Jul 22, 2010, at 2:56 PM, Paul Hoadley wrote: > >> Sorry, I should have tried to be clearer. Basically, I've got a parent >> object B (which will always be created first). At some point, B may obtain >> at most one child A, but it doesn't necessarily. So every B has zero or one >> child As. Every A has exactly one parent B. >> >> Currently I have a mandatory to-one relationship from A to B (so A knows its >> parent directly). To avoid some fetching, I have added an optional to-one >> relationship from B to A, so B knows its child if it has one. I assume >> there's no way to make these relationships inverses from EOF's perspective, >> and that I will just need to be careful about always setting the B to A >> relationship on creation of an A. > > How did you model this? B hold's the PK of A as a FK? They each need a FK > for the other, I think. Your relationships should be > > B.FKA == A.PK [1] > A.FKB == B.PK [2] > > I think...
Yeah, that's exactly what I've done. And [1] is optional (because not every B (parent) has an A (child)), and [2] is mandatory (because every A (child) has a B (parent)). But AFAICS, they're not being recognised as inverse relationships. Which is fine, because that's what my archive searching lead me to expect, but I wanted to, uh, go over it one more 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
