Got a clear understanding on what to do and not to do even if it works ... On Dec 1, 11:41 pm, Everaldo Gomes <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 8:35 PM, Robert Walker <[email protected]> wrote: > > Kad Kerforn wrote in post #1034622: > > > Is it wrong to use a beings_to on both side of a one-to-one > > > association ? > > > > User > > > belongs_to :account so I have an account_id field > > > > Account > > > belongs_to :owner, :class_name => 'User', :foreign_key => 'user_id' > > > > I can get user.account and account.owner > > > It runs, but I wonder about any collateral effect... > > > > thanks for your feedback > > > belongs_to should be on the side of a one-to-one association that > > contains the foreign key (same as a one-to-many). > > > The other side (the side without a foreign key should use has_one NOT > > belongs to. > > > I think I didn't thought enough before reply. =) > > Good arguments, guys! > > > > > > > > > User > > has_one :account > > > Account > > belongs_to :owner, :class_name => 'User', :foreign_key => 'user_id' > > > Or you could use the standard conventions: > > > Account > > belongs_to :user > > > -- > > Posted viahttp://www.ruby-forum.com/. > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "Ruby on Rails: Talk" 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/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" 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/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
