You can't do this with m2m, it has to be an interim object in between. Mark
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 8:46 AM, Ken Cummins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Yes and no... > > Yes it makes more sense, but I do not think it means what I want it to > mean (to paraphrase Inigo Montoya)... > > From how I read your pseudo-code, each LineItem can only be related to > one ProductOption. I need to be able to relate it to many options. > My problem is trying to link *back* to the LineItem from a m2m link in > LineItem. Since we need to identify both "ends" of the connection, I > would have to be able to identify the composite id of the LineItem. > But m2m only recognizes two links, and I'd need three (the two parts > to the line item composite id and the option id). > > Ken > > On Nov 12, 3:35 pm, "Mark Mandel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Ooops! >> >> That should be manytoone! My Bad! >> >> (I did mention it was pseudo code, right?) >> >> <object name="cart> >> <id name="uuid" /> >> <onetomany name="LineItems"> >> <link to="LineItem" /> >> </onetomany> >> </object> >> >> <object name="Product> >> <id name="uuid" /> >> </object> >> >> <object name="ProductOptions> >> <id name="uuid" /> >> </object> >> >> <object name="LineItem> >> <compositeid> >> <parentonetomany class="cart" /> >> <manytoone name="Product" /> >> <manytoone name="ProductOption" /> >> </compositeid> >> <manytoone name="Product"> >> <link to="Product" /> >> </manytoone> >> <manytoone name="ProductOption"> >> <link to="ProductOption" /> >> </manytoone> >> </object> >> >> That should make more sense now :D >> >> Mark >> >> >> >> On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 8:29 AM, Ken Cummins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > Ummm... From your earlier reply: >> >> >> <object name="LineItem> >> >> <compositeid> >> >> <parentonetomany class="cart" /> >> >> <onetomany name="Product" /> >> >> <onetomany name="ProductOption" /> >> >> </compositeid> >> >> > :) >> >> > But I see what you're saying about the o2m in a composite id. >> >> > And I like referential integrity, I was just curious... :) >> >> > On Nov 12, 3:26 pm, "Mark Mandel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 4:53 AM, Ken Cummins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> > I *think* I understand now, but there's one problem: a compositeid >> >> > can't contain a onetomany relationship. Only manytoone, >> >> > parentonetomany, or property. >> >> >> But there is no way a o2m could be a compositeID. The FK could never >> >> be on the table that way - its always on the child. >> >> >> > Also, as a point of clarification, should there be foreign keys set up >> >> > in the database itself, or is using the compositing of Transfer >> >> > sufficient? >> >> >> Of course you should use foreign keys... you don't like referential >> >> integrity? ;) >> >> >> Mark >> >> -- >> >> E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> W:www.compoundtheory.com >> >> -- >> E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> W:www.compoundtheory.com > > > -- E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] W: www.compoundtheory.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Before posting questions to the group please read: http://groups.google.com/group/transfer-dev/web/how-to-ask-support-questions-on-transfer You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transfer-dev" 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/transfer-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
