Re: delete rule, queries

From: Martin Ruff (mruf..imeon.ch)
Date: Thu Jun 12 2003 - 08:58:35 EDT

  • Next message: Andrus Adamchik: "Re: delete rule, queries"

    hi Arndt,
    Sorry I was not very clear, I meant was:

    1. I tell cayenne in the modeller to update the reverse, when editing the
    relation ToB, which fills in the reverse relationsship ToA in the Reverse
    Relationsship field.

    2. Or I do not check the checkmark in the Relationship Info Editor Dialog,
    which will leave the Reverse Relationsship field empty

    In case 2 I am allowed to configure delete rule Nullify, since there is no
    mandatory reverse relationsship

    In case one I want to configure No Action as delete rule since Nullify is
    not allowed due to the mandatory reverse relationsship. But then I get a
    runtime error unkown delete rule 0 (with cayenne 1b1). It works with
    beta3, but with beta3 we have problems in other places of the application
    as a posted a few days ago :-((

    2. One with reverse
    1.
    Lets say I have a 1:1 rel. ... without reverse
    relationship and second relation ToA from B to A. if i I call
    instanceofA.setToB(instanceofB)
    and then try to access instanceofA via B (instanceofB.getToA()) will it
    return null?

    I suppose that without reverse relationsship I do have to explicit call
    instanceofB.setToA(instanceofB) that instanceofB.getToA() will actually
    return me instanceofB is that correct?

    2.

    > Martin Ruff wrote:
    >
    >>Lets say I have a 1:1 rel. ... without reverse
    >>relationship and second relation ToA from B to A. if i I call
    >>instanceofA.setToB(instanceofB)
    >>and then try to access instanceofA via B (instanceofB.getToA()) will it
    >> return null?
    >>I suppose that without reverse relationsship I do have to explicit call
    >> instanceofB.setToA(instanceofB) that instanceofB.getToA() will actually
    >> return me instanceofB is that correct?
    >>
    >
    > Hi Martin,
    >
    > what I understood is that the reverse relationship
    > between ObjEntities is not modeled explicitly,
    > but determined at runtime.
    >
    > So if you say you have one relation without reverse relationship
    > plus a second relation in the reverse direction, what's that second
    > relation if not the reverse relation?
    >
    > regards,
    >
    > Arndt

    -------------------------------------------
    Be the change you want to see in the world.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Thu Jun 12 2003 - 08:57:04 EDT