The problem is that a relation may be one to one, one to many, many to
one or many to many. In each name, the first word refers to upper source
multiplicity and the last word to the upper target multiplicity.
So according to me RelatedToOne has not the same meaning than
OneRelatedTo or ToMany.
I am not sure that you want to describe the source multiplicity, so
ToOne and ToMany seem more adapted. In Java persistance is specified
with the @OneToOne, @OneToMany, @ManyToOne and @ManyToMany annotations.
Anne
Le 5 mars 2015 à 08:10, stepharo <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> a écrit :
-------- Message transféré --------
Sujet : Re: [Pharo-dev] Example implementation of associations with
Slots in Pharo 4.0
Date : Wed, 4 Mar 2015 13:20:45 +0800
De : Ben Coman <[email protected]>
Répondre à : Pharo Development List <[email protected]>
Pour : Pharo Development List <[email protected]>
Could someone explain why the "ToOne" and "ToMany" are the preferred
semantics for the class names versus OneRelatedTo or RelatedToOne ?
To me, "ToOne" feels like its describing the #directedMovies part.
I guess it makes sense if you are looking in towards #director.
cheers -ben
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 7:51 PM, Marcus Denker <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> On 27 Feb 2015, at 11:46, Jan van de Sandt <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Thanks for your suggestions. I have improved the naming and
definition to this:
>
> Object subclass: #SlotExampleMovie
> slots: {
> #name.
> #year.
> #director => ToOneRelationSlot inverse:
#directedMovies inClass: #SlotExamplePerson.
> #actors => ToManyRelationSlot inverse:
#actedInMovies inClass: #SlotExamplePerson }
> classVariables: { }
> category: 'SlotAssociations-Tests-Example'
>
> Because it is for now just an example I haven't renamed the Slot
classes yet.
>
Thanks! I will add the associations as examples to Pharo4 (today I
think)
Marcus
