Pinaki, Thanks for the suggestion. I tried following what you presented here and the tables do get created with the correct field names.
Having to provide a User object to a Role object seems a bit forced, but I can accept that. The problem however is that any attempt to save a Role fails. If I populate the Role.userId fields with a User object, then I receive the error <1.0.0-SNAPSHOT-SNAPSHOT nonfatal user error> org.apache.openjpa.persistence.InvalidStateException: Encountered unmanaged object "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" in persistent field "Role.userId" of managed object "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" during flush. However, this field does not allow cascade persist. You cannot flush unmanaged objects. I tried not filling the field, but that gets an error about having a null in a non nullable field. What I really am trying for is an independent Users table, Roles table and then a many-to-many relationship UserRole table. You've given me some ideas I'm trying right now to see if I can make it work. I'm seeing if I go ahead and create a UserRole object if there is a way I can get it to do what I want. Thanks. Jere -----Original Message----- From: Pinaki Poddar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2007 11:38 PM To: [email protected]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Can't get column names in a join table correct Jere, One way to match the Java classes and the tomcat's user-role schema is shown below: ======================================================================== ========= @Entity @Table(name="Users") public class User { @Id private String userId; private String password; @OneToMany(mappedBy="userId") private List<Role> roles; } @Entity @Table(name="Roles") @IdClass(Role.RoleId.class) public class Role { @Id @ManyToOne @Column(name="userId") private User userId; @Id @Column(name="role") private String roleName; public static class RoleId { public String userId; public String roleName; // *** Must write equals() and hasCode() method properly } } ============================================================ On MySQL the above class definitions + O-R mapping spec will be mapped to CREATE TABLE Users (userId VARCHAR(255) NOT NULL, password VARCHAR(255), PRIMARY KEY (userId)); CREATE TABLE Roles (role VARCHAR(255) NOT NULL, userId VARCHAR(255) NOT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (role, userId)); This is pretty much the same as tomcat's schema. Please note how OpenJPA supports entity relation as primary key to achieve this (Role.userId is part of the compound key). http://openjpa.apache.org/docs/latest/manual/manual.html#ref_guide_pc_oi d_entitypk Also Role.RoleId class must write equals() and hashCode() methods in a compliant way. What is 'compliant' is described In http://openjpa.apache.org/docs/latest/manual/manual.html#jpa_overview_pc _identitycls Pinaki Poddar 972.834.2865 -----Original Message----- From: Jere McDevitt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2007 9:36 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Can't get column names in a join table correct As my first try at using openjpa-1.0.0-SNAPSHOT (with Postgres) I'm trying to create classes that will map into tables that can be used by tomcat realm security. Tomcat requires the following exist for database security to work: A user table with fields to hold a userid and a password. A role table with fields to hold a userid and a role. When doing it manually, the schema looked like: create table users ( userid varchar(32) primary key not null, password varchar(64) not null ) create table roles ( userid varchar(32) not null, role varchar(32) not null, primary key (userid, role) ) Then, in the context.xml file for a web application, you have to provide do <Realm className="org.apache.catalina.realm.DataSourceRealm" dataSourceName="jndi/TestDS" localDataStore="true" digest="MD5" roleNameCol="role" userCredCol="password" userNameCol="userid" userTable="users" userRoleTable="roles"/> As you can see, the userid field must have the same name in both tables for tomcat to use this structure for user authentication. I have tried multiple ways to get a proper table structure built. I created a User.java class that looks like @Table(name="users") public class User implements Serializable { @Id String userid; @Column(nullable=false) String password; ArrayList<Role> roles ... } and a Role.java class that looks like @Table(name="roles") public class Role implements Serializable { @Id String roleName; } Then I create a single user with one role User u = new User("user","password"); Role r = new Role("admin"); u.addRole(r); //puts it in the roles arraylist and I do all the normal steps to apply these, first persisting the role object, then persisting the user object. I end up with 2 tables, users and roles. The users table has the User object in it but it stores the array list as a byte array. Not what I need. So I change the User class to look like: @Table(name="users") @SecondaryTable(name="users_roles", [EMAIL PROTECTED](name="userid", referencedColumnName="userId")) public class User implements Serializable { @Id String userid; @Column(nullable=false) String password; @Column(table="users_roles") ArrayList<Role> roles ... } So now I get 3 tables, the User object in users, the Role object in roles and the users_roles table now has a single entry with the userid field as requested, but it now has the byte array of data from the roles attribute. I've tried to declare the attribute @ManyToMany and it puts the data into a table called user_role but the fields are named user_userid and roles_rolename because it will not allow the @Column setting with the @ManyToMany. Any ideas how to structure the classes and/or annotations to get the table constructs needed? Thanks in advance Jere Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it.
