Re: Relationships without FK constraints?

From: Joseph Schmidt (joseph_schmidt7..ahoo.com)
Date: Sat Mar 28 2009 - 12:10:16 EDT

Next message: Joseph Schmidt: "Does Cayenne require a reversed relationship?"

Previous message: Juergen Saar: "Re: Relationships without FK constraints?"
Maybe in reply to: Joseph Schmidt: "Relationships without FK constraints?"
Next in thread: Joe Baldwin: "Re: Relationships without FK constraints?"
Reply: Joe Baldwin: "Re: Relationships without FK constraints?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

> "Convention over Configuration" can be useful (and fast) in > simple implementations (ex: JSP form assignments) but may > still be a bit too "fuzzy" for the larger scaleable > projects. > > These are my current opinions. I am interested in how > others look at it. The main issue is however that the user is forced to use what it's there - e.g. "legacy" DBs, or to schemes that belong to other applications too (e.g. RoR). Convention over Configuration is however very used these days even in large projects, so it would be a really great it Cayenne Modeler could simply pick them :). Joseph.

Next message: Joseph Schmidt: "Does Cayenne require a reversed relationship?"
Previous message: Juergen Saar: "Re: Relationships without FK constraints?"
Maybe in reply to: Joseph Schmidt: "Relationships without FK constraints?"
Next in thread: Joe Baldwin: "Re: Relationships without FK constraints?"
Reply: Joe Baldwin: "Re: Relationships without FK constraints?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Sat Mar 28 2009 - 12:10:50 EDT