It would be a bit complex to explain why I want to do that but basically I am wondering if I can define something like :

class customers extends page
{

static $has_many = array(
'country' => 'country'
);
}

and

class country extends DataObject
{
static $db = array(
'CountryName' => 'Text',
);
}

Note that I did *NOT* define the has-one relation in 'country'.

I know that by omitting the reverse "has-one" relation I can not point to a list of customers linked to the same country but
I know I will never need to .

So my question is : am I breaking the data model by doing this ? What risk am I taking here?

I tried and it works ...I just want to make sure I am not overlooking something critical.

Any advice and comments would be appreciated.

Thanks,
Lise

I'm a bit surprised that it still works - the has_one relation is really the important one in a one-many relation (it defines the other object id field in the database). Usually you can do without the has_many, but need the has_one, but in your case you should need both.

I would recommend you set it up correctly. The risk is that you've created the database field in a previous build, but removed the definition, so it might fail if you tried to rebuild from a fresh database.

Hamish,

Thank you for your reply ...you are probably very right because I am now experiencing s problem which, I suspect, is due to
the way I (incorrectly) define the relation. I will follow your advice.

Thanks again