> <table name="novos_jogadores" javaName="NovoJogador"> > <column name="id" javaName="id" primaryKey="true" required="true" > type="INTEGER" /> > <foreign-key foreignTable="jogadores" name="id"> > <reference local="id" foreign="novo_jogador_id" /> > </foreign-key> > </table> > > <table name="jogadores" javaName="Jogador"> > <column name="id" javaName="id" primaryKey="true" required="true" > type="INTEGER" /> > <column name="novo_jogador_id" javaName="novoJogadorId" > type="INTEGER" /> > <foreign-key foreignTable="novos_jogadores" name="novo_jogador_id"> > <reference local="novo_jogador_id" foreign="id" /> > </foreign-key> > </table> > > on the table 'novos_jogadores' i mapped 'id' as foreign key referencing a > foreign key on 'jogadores', this forces the generator to build a > NovoJogadorPeer.getJogador(NovoJogador x), is any problem with this kind of > mapping with updates, deletions and insertions?
Looks strange to me. I usually model a 1:1 relation like a 1:n relation (of which the 1:1 relation is a special case) Torqe treats this as a circular relationship rather than a 1:1 relationship so things can happen that you'd not expect. But if it works for you, nobody prevents you from modeling the relationship like you did. Thomas
