One2One fields

[ced]

I propose to remove this field because his behavior is the same than
just have a many2one with a SQL constraint UNIQUE().

[ced]

On Jun 4, 9:24 am, ced <krier.ced...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I propose to remove this field because his behavior is the same than
> just have a many2one with a SQL constraint UNIQUE().

Two week without comment!
Can I consider that anybody cares about this field?

[udono]

Hi ced,
ced schrieb:

> On Jun 4, 9:24 am, ced <krier.ced...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I propose to remove this field because his behavior is the same than
> > just have a many2one with a SQL constraint UNIQUE().

If this is the same, than its ok for me to remove the one2one.

> Two week without comment!
> Can I consider that anybody cares about this field?

Sorry, I solved my problem with another concept, which doesn't need
any longer a one2one relation.
I cant imagine if we need a one2one relation.

Greetings Udo

[Cédric Krier]

> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Tryton" group.
> To post to this group, send email to try...@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to tryton-un...@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tryton?hl=en
> -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
>

So I remove it.

--
Cédric Krier

B2CK sprl
Rue de Rotterdam, 4
4000 Liège
Belgium
Tel: +32 472 54 46 59
Email: cedric...@b2ck.com
Website: http://www.b2ck.com/