Jeff, you have mentioned this behavior (with the mapping table) to me
before, but I have yet to see it. As I recall, your using composit keys. Is
it possible this only happens when a composit key is involved?
Also, I agree it would be just great to know whats is and is not
implemented in EJB 2.0, and what the known problems are. I expect Evermind
must also have lots of example code that exercises the various features and
mapping types. Otherwise, how would they have tested it? I would love for
them to share this code as well... (Hint Hint).
Jim
--On Wednesday, October 25, 2000 12:07 AM -0700 Jeff Schnitzer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
