On 23/07/2010, at 7:42 AM, Chuck Hill wrote: >>> 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?
Yes, and vice versa. Only difference is that B to A is optional (parent can have zero children), A to B is mandatory (child must have a parent). > They both have the same PK? No. (Would this help?) -- Paul. http://logicsquad.net/ _______________________________________________ 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]
