This is something I have found puzzling about Orion's relationship
mapping. I suspect it is probably one of those "partially implemented"
parts of Orion.
It appears that when one-to-many relationships are used, Orion creates
and uses a separate relationship table. As far as the EJBs are
concerned, everything works just fine, but the table is not a very
efficient solution. In fact the "many"-side object table has a column
for the mapping field, but my experience has been that this is unused
and left as null.
FYI, the orion-ejb-jar.xml (and associated documentation) makes for
interesting reading. Looks like there are a *lot* of choices for exotic
(read: not accounted for in the current EJB spec) mapping types.
Karl/Magnus: Is there any way we can find out how complete the
implementation of new EJB2.0 features is? I don't know if you folks
would rather we enter this kind of stuff in Bugzilla or just leave it
alone and wait. Maybe a separate category should be set up for EJB2.0
bugs?
Jeff Schnitzer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John D'Ausilio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2000 8:40 AM
> To: Orion-Interest
> Subject: RE: EJB 2.0 Dependent bidirectional relationships not working
>
>
> I can't even get bidirectional relationships between beans
> working here ...
>
> I have a simple one-many relationship, collection in the
> parent, parent
> object in the child. When deployed, it correctly puts the
> backreference
> field in the child, but never fills it in with the parent's objectID
>
> has anyone used *any* bi-directional relationship successfully?
>
> john d
