On Oct 11, 8:39 pm, Brent <pub...@brentbonet.com
> Thanks for your response. I'm not suggesting that RubyAMF is the
> problem. I'm a flex dev and ruby/rails newb. I was just having
> issues with the has_one belongs_to situation and my use case. I'll
> try what you're suggesting.
> On Oct 11, 9:30 pm, fosrias <fosteri...@gmail.com
> > I don't think rubyamf is the limitation, it is how you define the
> > association in Rails. You could, for example, set up a one-to-many
> > relationship (address being the one) and then on the person side it
> > all works as long as you constrain the system to not allow multiple
> > persons to point to the same address (unless that did not matter). In
> > any case, person would always belong to "address." I.e. have one
> > address. Not sure where you see rubyamf being the bottleneck.
> > On Oct 11, 7:58 pm, Brent <pub...@brentbonet.com
> > > I'm a situation where I have a person class that refers to an address
> > > class. Typically the person class would have a has_one with address
> > > and address would have a belongs_to with person. The problem is that
> > > this puts a person_id in the address class. This is a problem since I
> > > want to use addresses with other classes. I'd prefer person to have an
> > > address_id. Is there any way to do this and have it work with rubyamf?