Hi Steve,
This information was useful (among other things in motivating me to
look at it rather sooner than later).
Andrus
On Feb 8, 2009, at 4:34 PM, Stephen Winnall wrote:
> I was getting verification exceptions (note: "was"; I don't any
> more) referring to "runtimeRelationship0", which I think is what you
> meant by auto-reverse relationships. I had these in two different
> cases.
>
> The initial case was the m:n mapping. In the meantime I don't think
> it has specifically to do with m:n mappings either. The two object
> entities involved in said mapping are subclasses, so I think it had
> to do with inheritance, which is what CAY-1009 seems to be about. I
> fixed this one by removing the "mandatory" option on the appropriate
> attribute, as suggested in CAY-1009.
>
> The second case was another use of inheritance. It went away after I
> went with the modeller through the entire inheritance tree and
> removed relationships which weren't relevant from the root class. I
> think that was my ignorance. The difficulty that I had was in
> working out what "runtimeRelationship0" referred to. It would be
> more helpful for the naive and the ignorant like me if the exception
> text referred to the "auto-reverse relationship of X".
>
> I'm conscious that this won't help you much and that I am something
> of a bull in a china-shop at the moment. But the more I use Cayenne,
> the more I like it. And I appreciate your support, which I find
> exemplary.
>
> Steve
>
>
> On 8 Feb 2009, at 14:41, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
>
>> 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 : Tue Feb 10 2009 - 02:51:55 EST