On Sep 20, 2008, at 6:40 AM, Florijan Stamenkovic wrote:
On Sep 19, 2008, at 16:20, Chuck Hill wrote:
I was thinking more of having A and B each have the other PK as a FK.
Huh... Have you ever done this? Anyone else?
I have played around with it, I don't recall if I used it or not.
Though this may irritate EOF when it tries to look up inverse
relationships. You can tell EOF what to do by implementing String
inverseForRelationshipKey(String relationshipKey) on A and B.
Yeah, sounds like this might end up kicking me in the ass.
Especially since I can't override client side class descriptions, so
I would have a discrepancy between what EOs and class descriptions
see as inverse relationships. Not sure I like this idea, it might
have unforeseeable consequences, no? More work...
Does that method exist for client side EOs?
But, to come back on the original idea, what do you think of putting
a uniqueness constraint on the FK? Would that somewhere somehow
screw the object graph up beyond repair?
I can't see how it would harm it. If violated, the save will fail.
Chuck
--
Chuck Hill Senior Consultant / VP Development
Practical WebObjects - for developers who want to increase their
overall knowledge of WebObjects or who are trying to solve specific
problems.
http://www.global-village.net/products/practical_webobjects
_______________________________________________
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]
