cayenne-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrey Razumovsky <razumovsky.and...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: CAY-1378, CAY-1009...
Date Wed, 10 Feb 2010 09:27:08 GMT
Anyways, I'm ok with reverting CAY-1009 but reopening it for 3.1

2010/2/10 Andrey Razumovsky <razumovsky.andrey@gmail.com>

> However, I think I could have called addToRelated() programmically without
> knowing name of relationship... Not sure though
>
> 2010/2/10 Andrey Razumovsky <razumovsky.andrey@gmail.com>
>
>
>>>
>>> Now back to 3.0... Could you explain why there is a mismatch in the
>>> mapping? I.e. why can't you remap (A -> C ; C -> B) as either (A ->
C ; C ->
>>> A) or (B -> C ; C -> B) from the application design perspective?
>>>
>>> Andrus
>>>
>>
>> In my case I don't have obj relationships A->C or B->C at all because I
>> don't need them. Only C->B, others are runtime
>
>
>
>
> --
> Andrey
>



-- 
Andrey

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message