From: Tim Fitzpatrick Subject: Re: Designer 6: Transferable relationships between entities Date: 2000/05/05 Message-ID: <8eui6t$q4d$1@nnrp1.deja.com>#1/1 References: <956939703.323161@tbird.introweb.nl> X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x25.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 159.134.23.3 Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. X-Article-Creation-Date: Fri May 05 13:27:11 2000 GMT X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDtfitzpatrick Newsgroups: comp.databases.oracle.tools X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.01; Windows 95) In article <956939703.323161@tbird.introweb.nl>, "Niels Stout" wrote: > Hi, > > Im working with Oracle Designer 6 and I'd like to know what is meant by a > relationship (end) being transferable or not. I've read the Oracle > documentation but that didn't make things much clearer. When I generate my > database there does not seem to be any difference between checking this > property or leaving it blank. Could someone explain this concept to me, > preferable with an example? > > Thanks, > > Niels > > Neils, The transferablility dictates whether a child entity instance can change parent entity instances over time. The default in Designer has always been to allow transferability. The only down side to this is that it should be the other way around, i.e. relationships should not be transferable. Oracle have known this for a good few years now, but never done anything about it. In fact, if a relationship is transferable I would question whether it should be there at all. I suspect it should be replaced with a many-to- many resolution entity, containing the effective date attributes hinted at. In terms of transformation and generation, the DDL generator has never done anything with the "transferable" flag. Oracle's argument has always been that it was there for "future compatibility", or "it seemed like a good idea at the time". I hope this helps to clear some things up. Cheers, Tim Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.