I have the same problem as you, I have asked the question too, "
Why use add***() on the primary object don't update the foreign key on the
foreign table?
and I think it is a bug, itsn't it?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Edward Hicks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 10:01 AM
Subject: [castor-dev] foreign key assignment for dependant objects
> I have 2 classes: Article and dependant class Segment. a Segment
> collection is mapped to Article with <sql many-key="articleid">
>
> without having to map the foreign key column "articleid" to a field in
> Segment, castor can load an Article along with the Segment collection
> just fine. this is good.
>
> going the other way, i wanted to be able to modify the Segment
> collection of an Article, adding new Segment instances, and persist the
> Article back to the database with db.update().
>
> castor does create new Segments in the database, but doesn't write the
> Article id into the foreign key column. it seems castor should be able
> to do this in the case of dependant classes.
>
> i hunted around the mail archives, but couldn't find anything on this.
> i also looked in the persistence source code, but only found dependency
> checking for superclasses.
>
> is there any way castor can perform this update successfully without
> having to map the fields for foreign keys?
>
> i'm specifically trying to avoid mapping foreign key fields so as to
> decouple the java classes from the relational tables as much as
> possible.
>
> thanks,
> ed hicks
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing, send mail to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of:
> unsubscribe castor-dev
>
-----------------------------------------------------------
If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing, send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of:
unsubscribe castor-dev
