Re: mandatory reverse relation

From: Todd O'Bryan (toddobrya..ac.com)
Date: Tue Aug 03 2004 - 14:32:29 EDT

  • Next message: Reinaldo Coelho Sartorelli: "Help to query!!"

    Please correct me if I'm wrong, but even though this relationship
    exists, it's looked up lazily, correct?

    In other words, if he gets a row from ware, there will be a hook to get
    all the orders but they won't actually be looked up until and unless he
    calls the method that asks for them. So, even though there is potential
    information available that we don't need, as long as we never use the
    information, there's no performance penalty...

    Or am I just being overly optimistic?

    Todd

    On Aug 3, 2004, at 3:14 AM, Jürgen Saar wrote:

    > Hi,
    >
    > I've got a problem with the fact that reverse relations are mandatory
    > in cayenne.
    >
    > Example:
    >
    > There is a 1 to 1 Realationship between OderPosition and wares
    > When I select a row in my wares, there will be all orders
    > that deal with this in this ware-object.
    >
    > This is not the behavior I would like.
    >
    > Any hints ?
    >
    > --- Juergen ---
    > ________________________________________________________________
    > Verschicken Sie romantische, coole und witzige Bilder per SMS!
    > Jetzt neu bei WEB.DE FreeMail: http://freemail.web.de/?mc=021193
    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Tue Aug 03 2004 - 14:32:32 EDT