On Feb 10, 2010, at 2:44 PM, Kevin Menard wrote:
I mapped the relationship for the one subclass that
needed it because it was the only one that needed it. While I could
have mapped it at the superclass level, all other siblings would then
have the method, which would be logically invalid.
This all sounds correct and this works as far as I can tell.
The only way I can reproduce the problem is if there is a user-mapped,
not runtime, reverse relationship connected to a superclass, while the
forward relationship is connected to a subclass (or vice versa). I.e.
(A -> C ; C -> B) is a bad combination, but just (C -> B) without an
explicit (A -> C) works ok. I.e. runtime relationships help you avoid
reverse relationships, unless an incorrect cross-hierarchy mapping is
present.
Andrus
