Playing with this some more, I don't even think the setX() approach will
always work.
Given the following:
Customer <--------- Address
ShippingAddress extends Address
BillingAddress extends Address
The following code does not really yield expected results either:
assertEquals(0, c.getShippingAddresses());
ShippingAddress sa;
sa.setCustomer(c);
assertEquals(1, c.getShippingAddresses());
The last assertion will fail in the current context. My guess is that
Cayenne is using Address's setCustomer() rather than ShippingAddress's or
that it is having difficulty resolving the type. A new context reading the
value from the DB will return the entry in getShippingAddresses() just fine.
Likewise, using the other end of the relationship yields proper results
(i.e., calling c.addToShippingAddresses(sa)).
I guess a manual duplicate check is the only reasonable approach in that
case.
--
Kevin
On 3/5/08 12:11 PM, "Mike Kienenberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For what it's worth, I have always avoided this issue by only using
> the artist.setPainting(painting) method and never the
> painting.addToArtist(artist) method.
>
> Another possibility would be to have the generated template addTo*
> method do the check as Andrus points out:
>
> if(!user.getRoles().contains(role)) {
> user.addToRoles(role);
> }
