Trying to clarify... David Nielsen <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> once said: > /** > * @ejb:interface-method > * @ejb:relation > * name="MailMessages-toUser" > * role-name="MailMessages-Has-toToUser" > * target-ejb="Users" > * target-role-name="toUser-belongs_to-MailMessages" > * target-cascade-delete="yes" > * @jboss:target-relation > * related-pk-field="messageKey" > * fk-column="messageKey" > * @jboss:relation-table > * table-name="MailMessages_toUsers" > * create-table="true" > * remove-table="true" > ... > jboss creates the mailmessages + the users table but no > mailmessages_tousers table, and there now are a column (messagekey) in
> users table. This is a unidirectional 1:N relation, correct? I ask because you don't need a separate relation table to model 1:N -- only for N:M. And if it's N:M, "toUser" is actually a Collection, and the role-name would be "MailMessages-Have-Many-toUsers". Though this shouldn't matter, the role-name has a typo. It should be "MailMessages-Has-toUser", not "toToUser". Regardless, can you provide a bit more detail here, perhaps including the schema and a description of the relation itself. I'm finding it difficult to apply my intuition when the names don't match up with my expectations. For example, you use "MailMessages" and "Users", yet I expect that they actually represent single objects. A "Users" is a single user, and each may have zero-or-more "MailMessages"s. I realize, though, that many people name their DB tables with plurals (users_t vs. user_t). I just want to make sure so we can help you better. David Harkness Sr. Software Engineer Sony Pictures Digital Networks (310) 482-4756 ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ xdoclet-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xdoclet-user
