>>
>>If I use the jbosscmp-jdbc.xml file I can get it to work.
>>
>
> Do you have to use the jbosscmp-jdbc.xml file? If you don't, what happens?
> Does the system generate two columns with the same name?
>
The database table already exsists. Basically I have to use
foreign-key-fields and set field-name and column-name attributes the same.
>
>>>Ok now that we agree on that. How would you like the column names
>>>generated? Be very very specific and take into consideraton
>>>
>>the above
>>
>>>problems.
>>>
>>>
>>I do no want jboss to generate any column names. It's not necessary.
>>Either the class field is the database column name or in
>>jbosscmp-jdbc.xml you specify that class field x maps to
>>database column
>>y. If there is a name space collision then it is a database setup
>>problem not JBOSS's and we should not be coding for it.
>>
>
> All column names are either generated, or specified in the jbosscmp-jdbc.xml
> file. Your opinion is that when jboss generates the column name for a
> relationship fk it should first attempt to the name of the cmr-field
> abstract accessors. Problems occur when the entity does not have an
> accessor for the relationship, and when the primary key related entity maps
> to more then one db column. What is your complete proposal for fk column
> generation and relation-table column generation? Be specific.
>
Not quite I suggest you use the name of the cmr-field-name in the
ejb-relationship. therefore when creating the column the field always
has to be there.
Now after great thought how do you keep the columns straight in a multi
column pk? So if table1 has a primary key of a,b,c and the foregin key
in the table2 is e,f,g and then to find the key a=g,b=f and c=e how do
you specify this now? There is no guarantee on the order the fields are
pulled out of the primary key. Is the order we specify them in the
<cmp-field><field-name> have to be the same on both sides of the relation?
Once you answer this I can pull the rest of the proposal together.
>
>>>As for my comment "easy to code," that is perfectly valid,
>>>
>>as we are
>>
>>>shooting for CMP 2.0 compliance. CMP 2.0 is a huge spec,
>>>
>>so everything can
>>
>>>not be "perfect" in the first pass. Some of the
>>>
>>implementation details get
>>
>>>implemnted the easy way. There have to be priorities.
>>>
>>>
>>Yup, it's just this one looks like something that will fill
>>the mailing lists. If you pulled together your test cases then I
>>could probably have a look, you do not have to do this whole
>>thing by yourself.
>>
>
> I know. I am working on the todo list right now (which will be posted to
> sf), and after that I will be adding my test cases. For now, what is your
> proposal?
>
> -dain
>
>
_______________________________________________
Jboss-development mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
