Dain Sundstrom wrote: > > 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.
(Please let me know if I'm speaking out my ass (again...)) I seem to recall someone mentioning that hypersql allows two columns in a table to have the same name. This is not normally allowed in SQL databases, right? If your test case only tests against hypersql, then it will probably give a false positive result. I filed bug 530437 (http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=530437&group_id=22866&atid=376685) because I ran into a similar problem using postgresql which complains about the relationship table that has two columns with the same name. Now in my case it is a many-to-many self-relationship, but a one-to-many self-relationship also needs to have a separate relationship table, right? --Andrew _______________________________________________ JBoss-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user
