Hello Mark,
I have also noticed that you don't map the relationship
bi-directionally. Castor requires your A class to have a collection of
Bs and your B class to have a collection of As. You must explicitly add
the As to the Bs and vice-verse (this can be done in the addXXXXX()
method within the persistent class to save you remembering in the client
code).
i.e. in class A
addB(B b) {
b.addA(this);
this.bs.put(b); //or whatever, I am shooting from the hip here ;-)
}
You therefore also need to address this in the mapping.
<class name="b" identity="id">
<map-to table="b_table" />
<field name="id" />
<field name="as" type="a" collection="map">
<sql name="aId" many-table="bridge_table" many-key="bId" />
</field>
</class>
I hope this helps.
Patrick
Mark Woon wrote:
> Hmm...
>
> After playing with this some more, it looks like I need to get my B
> objects within the current transaction for this to work. Is there any
> way around this?
>
>
> Thanks,
> -Mark
>
>
> Mark Woon wrote:
>
>> Hi all...
>>
>> I've encountered an interesting problem where Castor is under the
>> impression that my many-to-many relationships are not persistable.
>> I've an object A which has a collection of object B's. The db schema
>> is something like:
>>
>> A table
>> -------
>> id
>>
>>
>> B table
>> -------
>> id
>>
>> Bridge table
>> ------------
>> aId
>> bId
>>
>> <class name="a" type="a" identity="id">
>> <map-to table="a_table" />
>> <field name="id" />
>> <field name="b" type="b" collection="map">
>> <sql name="bId" many-table="bridge_table" many-key="aId" />
>> </field>
>> </class>
>>
>> <class name="b" identity="id">
>> <map-to table="b_table" />
>> <field name="id" />
>> </class>
>>
>>
>> I've created a new A object, and added a few B objects into A's
>> collection of B objects. When I try calling db.create(a), the
>> appropriate entry in a_table gets created, but nothing gets created
>> in the bridge_table. I can trace it all the way to
>> ClassMolder.create(), where it checks to see if many-to-may
>> relationships are persistable (by calling tx.isPersistent(oo)) and is
>> told that they're NOT persistable. B implements TimeStampable, but
>> I'm guessing that's not enough. Does anyone have any ideas as to why
>> this may be the case? I just don't understand what Castor is doing
>> at this point.
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------- 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
