Beginner |
|
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 6:56 am Posts: 29
|
If you look at it from the other way around you get the simple case. You're simply mapping the inverse side of a bidirectional one-to-one mapping.
What kind of model are you trying to achieve here? Is it a parent-child relationship? In this case you could say that B is the parent and A is the child (A can't live when B ceases to exist because of the foreign key). It doesn't matter that B is 'contained' in A. This is just a navigation link, and in this case the reference to B in A would be the inverse one.
I think when they talk about mapping to the primary key they mean mapping two tables by both's primary keys, rather than primary to foreign.
|
|