Re: [JBoss-dev] cmp: foreign-key-mapping

2001-10-23 Thread Peter Levart
On Monday 22 October 2001 17:54, Dain Sundstrom wrote: The following issues apply to foreign-key-mapping .. 1) problems with unidirectional relations: deployment does not work, because the JDBCCMRFieldBridge.initRelatedData does not find the related cmrField - throws

RE: [JBoss-dev] cmp: foreign-key-mapping

2001-10-23 Thread Holger Engels
On Mon, 22 Oct 2001, Dain Sundstrom wrote: See my previous email. This shouldn't happen if the relationship is specified the right way. Anyway, thanks for your good emails. You are one of the first users of the new cmp 2.0 code, so anything you can tell us will help clean the system for

RE: [JBoss-dev] cmp: foreign-key-mapping

2001-10-23 Thread Holger Engels
On Tue, 23 Oct 2001, Dain Sundstrom wrote: Glad to see it is working. I didn't check, if foreign keys are actually written to the db, if I set them in the ejbPostCreate method .. I think of, what Peter Levart posted on this thread .. I'll get there soon. But now, I have another

RE: [JBoss-dev] cmp: foreign-key-mapping

2001-10-22 Thread Dain Sundstrom
The following issues apply to foreign-key-mapping .. 1) problems with unidirectional relations: deployment does not work, because the JDBCCMRFieldBridge.initRelatedData does not find the related cmrField - throws DeploymentException I just fixed a bug in this code last night, where

RE: [JBoss-dev] cmp: foreign-key-mapping

2001-10-22 Thread Dain Sundstrom
The following issues apply to foreign-key-mapping .. 1) problems with unidirectional relations: deployment does not work, because the JDBCCMRFieldBridge.initRelatedData does not find the related cmrField - throws DeploymentException I just fixed a bug in this

RE: [JBoss-dev] cmp: foreign-key-mapping

2001-10-22 Thread Dan OConnor
On 22 Oct 01, at 14:42, Dain Sundstrom wrote: I think, you are right .. should have read the spec more deeply .. but this restriction implies, that foreign keys must never have a NOT NULL constraint. I wonder, if that was an intended behaviour?! Hi guys, You can have not null