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 johnthuss@gmail.com designates
 209.85.213.171 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAOUwSGuzk=x4Jb0niza-+yjgsXq9yJPqcPAwOOUi1Wn7nQen9A@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAOUwSGttZrwj9Np8YeqbzGmYcfXxE02=5PW8YWxjQ0oUzTR2xg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOUwSGvHmNKtrPnx-Drq3PYOnO8JQroTBUViMLEHJ0fXfU+Mhw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAA-upzoKwJxFG9RThnBcf8Rii12Q82zn+MyoEVykBffH0Ffwzg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOUwSGuzk=x4Jb0niza-+yjgsXq9yJPqcPAwOOUi1Wn7nQen9A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 16:24:40 -0500
Message-ID: 
 <CAOUwSGtpBud9M3KSVayVB8p2n-qAPaaUwLfzZYbE3eSdhR511Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Auto-creation of reverse relationships
From: John Huss <johnthuss@gmail.com>
To: "user@cayenne.apache.org" <user@cayenne.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf300fb101c1c3af04bb125ea2

--20cf300fb101c1c3af04bb125ea2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 10:34 PM, John Huss <johnthuss@gmail.com> wrote:

> My entity classes use explicit fields to store data instead of a Map, so
> when it tries to access the "runtimeRelationshipX" fields it blows up
> because these don't exist in the generated java classes.  I've dealt with
> it so far by just modeling all the relationships so that the fields are
> there to hold the data.  But now I'm using more introspection and having
> these unnecessary relationships is requiring workaround that I would prefer
> not to have.
>
> I did try turning this off today and thus far everything seems ok, but
> there is a lot more to test to be sure.
>

So, just to follow up on this...  I did run into some problems - one was
when adding some prefetches to a query it would look for the reverse
relationship and blow up.  There was another occurrence elsewhere too, but
I don't recall where.  So I turned back on the creation of the reverse
DbRelationships only and that seems to work well.  These "unneeded"
DbRelationships don't hurt anything and still keep my entity classes free
of accessors for relationships that I don't want.

So my question now is, it is ok if I submit a patch to make it optional to
create the reverse ObjRelationships?  I would probably use a property to
configure it, but maybe there is a better way.

Thanks,
John

--20cf300fb101c1c3af04bb125ea2--