cayenne-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrus Adamchik <>
Subject Re: CAY-1378, CAY-1009...
Date Wed, 10 Feb 2010 13:01:48 GMT

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  


View raw message