On 2009 Dec 04, at 04:37, Mark Smith wrote: > However... when I do a unidirectional one to many relationship, the compiler > (rightly) complains as I do not have inverse relationships. However, it > makes no sense to me to clutter up my address object with pointers back to > "company" and "contact" and perhaps any other entity down the line that may > need an "address."
The conventional solution to this "problem" is to ignore your common sense and just add the inverse relationships to your data model anyhow. I don't believe that any pointers will be created unless Core Data feels like it needs them while running, which if your common sense is correct, it won't. _______________________________________________ Cocoa-dev mailing list ([email protected]) Please do not post admin requests or moderator comments to the list. Contact the moderators at cocoa-dev-admins(at)lists.apple.com Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/cocoa-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [email protected]
