Core Data documentation [1] describes the Cascade Delete Rule as
follows:
"Delete the objects at the destination of the relationship. For
example, if you delete a department, fire all the employees in that
department at the same time."
In order to understand another problem, I tried this on thi
On Tuesday, June 23, 2009, at 07:23PM, "Jerry Krinock" wrote:
>Although eyebrows are raised at the on-the-fly invention of the term
>"back pointers" (not defined in wikipedia.org), I suppose that "back
>pointers ... are nullified" could be loosely interpreted to mean that,
"Back pointer" is
On Jun 23, 2009, at 16:23, Jerry Krinock wrote:
The documentation of the NSDeleteRule simply states:
"NSCascadeDeleteRule. If the object is deleted, the destination
object or objects of this relationship are also deleted."
That's all, chief. There is an "if", but there are no "ands" or
"
On 2009 Jun 23, at 00:48, Quincey Morris wrote:
The delete rules are really about ownership. Department->Employee
ownership is clear: *the* department owns each of its employees. But
Employee->Department ownership isn't well defined. (If two employees
"own" the same department, who gets to
On Jun 22, 2009, at 13:55, Jerry Krinock wrote:
In order to understand another problem, I tried this on this the
inverse relationship in Apple's DepartmentAndEmployees Sample Code
project. That is, in the data model, I selected the Employee -->
Department to-one relationship by selecting t
Core Data documentation [1] describes the Cascade Delete Rule as
follows:
"Delete the objects at the destination of the relationship. For
example, if you delete a department, fire all the employees in that
department at the same time."
In order to understand another problem, I tried this
