On Feb 10, 2010, at 2:44 PM, Kevin Menard wrote:
> I mapped the relationship for the one subclass that
> needed it because it was the only one that needed it. While I could
> have mapped it at the superclass level, all other siblings would then
> have the method, which would be logically invalid.
This all sounds correct and this works as far as I can tell.
The only way I can reproduce the problem is if there is a user-mapped,
not runtime, reverse relationship connected to a superclass, while the
forward relationship is connected to a subclass (or vice versa). I.e.
(A -> C ; C -> B) is a bad combination, but just (C -> B) without an
explicit (A -> C) works ok. I.e. runtime relationships help you avoid
reverse relationships, unless an incorrect cross-hierarchy mapping is
present.
Andrus
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Wed Feb 10 2010 - 08:02:19 EST