That would be great.
Often object elationships represent ownership, so having the reverse
relationship exposed doesn't make much sense. Also I often have the
use case where may classes will have a relationship with a particular
class, which ends up being cluttered with the reverse relationships.
regards Malcolm Edgar
On 8/5/07, Andrus Adamchik <andru..bjectstyle.org> wrote:
> We have two rules related to relationship mapping that we can really
> do well without:
>
> 1. A DbRelationship always requires a reverse DbRelationship.
> 2. A to-many ObjRelationship without a reverse to-one is effectively
> read only.
>
> I've done some work on a project where we've used generic persistent
> classes, and it occurred to me that while the two things above are
> indeed a property of Cayenne runtime, users don't have to worry about
> such low level details. Cayenne can automagically add missing reverse
> relationships in runtime to the corresponding entities, without user
> ever noticing. That simple - don't know why nobody thought of that
> before :-)
>
> BTW what makes (2) painless is CayenneDataObject that can store
> arbitrary data in it, so a back pointer from toOne side to the toMany
> site can be stored. This won't work in case of POJO's (without extra
> enhancement), but for normal Cayenne we get that functionality out of
> the box.
>
> Any comments on that?
>
> Andrus
>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Sun Aug 05 2007 - 07:06:44 EDT