On Jul 22, 2010, at 3:39 PM, Paul Hoadley wrote: > 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?)
It would make it worse, I just wanted to understand the situation. -- 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]
