+1
If Record needs 3 fields to uniquely identify a row (object), then by
definition RecordDetails.seqId on it's own _can't_ be a complete FK.
otoh if seqId _is_ sufficient to uniquely identify a row, then
conversely Record.{source, owner} are not required in the PK. Either
way the model isn't right as it stands.
Maybe {source, owner} form an alternate unique key to seqId for Record
instead of being part of the same key?
- S.
On Jul 2, 9:18 pm, Moandji Ezana <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 4:08 PM, Sean Comerford
> <[email protected]>wrote:
>
> > So the solution was to add owner and source to the RecordDetails table...
> > not a big deal but seems weird JPA required that.
>
> It seems fairly logical to me: just a seqId doesn't uniquely identify a
> Record, so how could it be a foreign key?
>
> Moandji
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The
Java Posse" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
