I am not 100% sure your problem is related to CAY-1009. IIRC CAY-1009
describes a very special case that did not work. In most cases n:m
relationships work just fine. So can you describe your problems in
more detail? Anything special in your mapping that makes you think it
is the same problem as CAY-1009?
Andrus
On Feb 8, 2009, at 3:03 AM, Stephen Winnall wrote:
> I've got this error again in another part of my schema. Since I
> don't really understand what the cause is, I go through the
> attributes of the DB entity switching off the "mandatory" option and
> seeing if the problem goes away. Is there an easier way to recognise
> which attribute is causing the problem? Is it a problem with the DB
> entity or with the object entity?
>
> Steve
>
> On 4 Feb 2009, at 09:42, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
>
>> Yes, the issues with auto-reverse relationships need to be fixed
>> rather sooner than later, and to the best of my knowledge nobody is
>> working on it right now. But this is certainly high on the list.
>>
>> Andrus
>>
>> On Feb 3, 2009, at 11:39 PM, Stephen Winnall wrote:
>>
>>> Is CAY-1009 (Bogus runtime relationships can mess up commit) due
>>> for resolution any time soon? I think I've run into it whilst
>>> modelling an m:n relationship. The work-around (making the
>>> attributes in the intersect entity non-mandatory) works, but it
>>> would be nice to do it properly.
>>>
>>> Steve
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Sun Feb 08 2009 - 08:42:17 EST