Mailing-List: contact user-help@cayenne.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: user@cayenne.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of mkienenb@gmail.com designates
 209.85.221.136 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=Na9+CoETkxJc3yLIIv5T9+HhlwsBFjnUDQ8Wf5HzxVNniyO/EUBvuajxFJ1N0L2ggU
         9XZwWY6ztE9IOX+0Pyzf7gn8sFAsACpZ5tF92PEatiyeczZhsRW+2fgwAXhoHNGKlgc/
         pgweGdaJbuIaalsx41iSb4Y1arrM3e6yGjBYk=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <930547.24813.qm@web111108.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: <930547.24813.qm@web111108.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 12:28:59 -0400
Message-ID: <8f985b960903280928u3dd13155q774174f0f2fbbece@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Does Cayenne require a reversed relationship?
From: Mike Kienenberger <mkienenb@gmail.com>
To: user@cayenne.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

It used to be true that the reverse db relationship was required, but
the reverse obj relationship was not required.  From the application's
point of view, it doesn't have to be there.

On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 12:21 PM, Joseph Schmidt
<joseph_schmidt71@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Does Cayenne require the use of a reversed relationship always?
>
> Of course they're practical, but in many schemes e.g. in the case of the 'user' table, just too many other tables (~2/3 of them) point to it because of the required "updated_by_user_id".
>
> If reversed relationships would be required, than in this case the User entity would be totally bloated with reverse list attributes to almost all other entities.
>
> What is the best strategy to map in this case?
>
> Thanks,
> Joseph.
>
>
>
>
>