On 9/8/06, John Siracusa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/8/06 11:17 PM, Clayton Scott wrote:
> > sub plural_to_singular { $_[1] }
> > sub singular_to_plural { $_[1] }
>
> I'm not sure what you're aiming for with that bit, but it's what's causing
> the conflict (albeit in a roundabout way). If you just want the table names
> to be singular, set the tables_are_singular() convention manager attribute
> to true.
This is a new feature that I hadn't seen yet, I'd been doing things
with he cusom CM
for a few months and I just ran into issues generaing classes when I
upgraded yesterday.
Thank you especially for the solution for those of use that use
singluar table names.
> When I ran that against your tables (modified to give the first two tables
> primary keys, which I'm assuming you forgot to copy/paste in your original
> email) I got classes with relationships like those shown below, which I
> believe is what you want.
Yes, thank you!
Clayton
--
Clayton Scott
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier
Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642
_______________________________________________
Rose-db-object mailing list
Rose-db-object@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rose-db-object
