Can you explain why one to one is not advised? We use one-to-one in a non-legacy system, generally for items which are optional. The other way we could do this would be to represent the object as a many to many, which now structures the data in a way that is inconsistent with how we use the data.
Again, why is one-to-one "not advised"? Tim On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 10:01 AM, Will Shaver <[email protected]> wrote: > One-to-one is not advised for new database design, but is supplied for > legacy databases. I am using one-to-one to map out the legacy databases that > I have to deal with and it works fine. I recently fixed a bug so now > one-to-one mapping with composite keys will work. > -Will > > > On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 2:20 AM, Adeel <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Again, for my current project which involves a legacy database, I need >> to map entities who have a one-to-one relationship. This translates to >> the following: An entity "person", which is stored in a "person"- >> table, always has one and only one SearcProfile, which is another >> entity, stored in the "SearchProfile"-table. The Searchprofile also >> has a one-to-one relationship with the Person. >> As I understand, using One-To-One mappings is not advised. But what >> would be the fitting strategy for mapping such a relation... >> >> > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "nhusers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nhusers?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
