David Ward wrote:
> 1) Note to Peter - you can't have a message bean involved in a cmr
> relationship (only entities can participate in cmr's), so I'm a bit
> confused by your first statement.
I think he has an entity named Message.
> 2) I started this thread, and though I think I found the right way to do
> it a while ago, I've negleted to share what I've learned with the
> community. (bad me.) So here goes (granted, I haven't tested this
> completely yet, but it's looking good so far)...
>
> If you want a bidierectional parent-child relationship where both the
> parent and the child are of the same bean, *you have to define two
> relationships, not one*:
>
> - The first specifies the one-2-one unidirectional relationship an
> entity has with its parent. This will correlate with an abstract
> get/setParent(YourBeanLocal) in the bean.
>
> - The second specifies the one-2-many unidirectional relationship an
> entity has with its children. This will correlate with an abstract
> get/setChildren(Collection) in the bean.
>
> It seems impossible to do this bidirectionaly in a single relationship
> definition.
>
> Dain, do you agree with my methodology?
Uh, no. This sounds like a hack. You should be able to have a
one-to-many self-relationship. For example in a person bean you should
be able to have, literally, a parent-child relationship with the
following abstract accessors.
public abstract Person getParent();
public abstract void setParent(Parent parent);
public abstract Set getChildren();
public abstract void setChildren(Set children);
If this doesn't work, it is a bug. I have a test case for this, but it
could be broken.
As a side note, I think Peter is attempting to use a not null fk or a fk
in a pk which does not work currently.
-dain
_______________________________________________
JBoss-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user
