Not only does a class get cluttered with unnecessary used reverse relationships, but in my own use cases, these relationships are often to another DataMap, creating complicated and unnecessary data map dependencies.
On 8/5/07, Malcolm Edgar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That would be great. > > Often object elationships represent ownership, so having the reverse > relationship exposed doesn't make much sense. Also I often have the > use case where may classes will have a relationship with a particular > class, which ends up being cluttered with the reverse relationships. > > regards Malcolm Edgar > > On 8/5/07, Andrus Adamchik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > We have two rules related to relationship mapping that we can really > > do well without: > > > > 1. A DbRelationship always requires a reverse DbRelationship. > > 2. A to-many ObjRelationship without a reverse to-one is effectively > > read only. > > > > I've done some work on a project where we've used generic persistent > > classes, and it occurred to me that while the two things above are > > indeed a property of Cayenne runtime, users don't have to worry about > > such low level details. Cayenne can automagically add missing reverse > > relationships in runtime to the corresponding entities, without user > > ever noticing. That simple - don't know why nobody thought of that > > before :-) > > > > BTW what makes (2) painless is CayenneDataObject that can store > > arbitrary data in it, so a back pointer from toOne side to the toMany > > site can be stored. This won't work in case of POJO's (without extra > > enhancement), but for normal Cayenne we get that functionality out of > > the box. > > > > Any comments on that? > > > > Andrus > > > > > > > > > > >
