On 19 Apr 2007, at 13:37, Ken Anderson wrote:
Frank,There must be a large number of objects in the relationship you're adding to. In that case, you might want to just add it to the other side. Is it a relationship that you use often? If so, you might want to consider changing how it works so that there's not such a large group of objects being returned.In other words, if you have a to many with an opposite to-one: A <-->> BIf you set B's to-one relationship to A (not using the both sides method), you won't trigger the to-many fault. Of course, if the to- many fault has already been triggered, you're going to have an inaccurate object graph. A hokey solution might be to test whether to to-many relationship from A to B is a fault or a real array, and then add in that direction if necessary.Bottom line - I would change my relationships. Do you absolutely need this to-many relationship? Could it be handled with a fetch instead for a once in a while situation? A common misconception that people have is that they should model both directions of every relationship. Only model what you need...Ken On Apr 19, 2007, at 7:41 AM, Frank Stock wrote:HI,I did test it with addTo<relationsShipName> and that just gives me the same result!
...
On 19-Apr-07, at 4:50 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:From: Frank Stock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 19 April 2007 4:50:08 PM GMT+05:30 To: [email protected] Subject: AddObjectToBothSidesOfRelationshipWithkey Hi, When I do this:
...
This will take 90 seconds to complete (will all the rest of the code)I can see in the debugger that every time I do a AddObjectToBothSidesOfRelationshipWithkey WO will perform a select-statement, the relations have a lot of records (>2000). I have to to that a lot of time and all I need is just to make a relation between the objects.Why is WO performing a select every time and can I avoid that?
Frank Stock
Yes. I've seen this problem often enough myself, and changing the eomodel was not an option for me. Apart from anything else, I do need the inverse relationship. I've seen people manipulate relationships directly using public accessors rather than let addObjectToBothSidesOfRelationshipWithKey(,) or removeObjectFromBothSidesOfRelationshipWithKey(,) make those changes, and while I have seen this approach working, I think it is prone to error.
I've got a solution I like for this, but, as some of you will have heard ad nauseam, I'm still working with WO451/ObjC .
OSPArrayFaultSuppressor.h
Description: Binary data
OSPArrayFaultSuppressor.m
Description: Binary data
OSPArrayFaultSuppressorRecord.h
Description: Binary data
OSPArrayFaultSuppressorRecord.m
Description: Binary data
-- Patrick Middleton OneStep Solutions plc 351 London Road Phone: +44 (0)1702 426400 Hadleigh Fax: +44 (0)1702 556855 Essex. SS7 2BT Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] England (MIME welcome)
_______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list ([email protected]) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
