So, why does exists many-to-one if it is the same as many-to-any? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Arvind" <[email protected]> To: "nhusers" <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2009 10:30 AM Subject: [nhusers] Re: many-to-one Vs many-to-any
Thank you James! That confirms what I've observed. <any> DOES behave like <many-to-one> ! On Oct 6, 12:15 pm, James Gregory <[email protected]> wrote: > Not certain, but I believe <any> is the equivalent to <many-to-one>, and > <many-to-any> is used like <many-to-many> inside a <set> (or other > collection) element. > > > > On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Arvind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > *trolling* > > > No one has an answer to this? > > > On Oct 5, 2:20 pm, Arvind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I think I'm missing something simple here. > > > > in the following example of Father and Child (parent-child > > > relationship) > > > > Father: > > > > <class name="father" table="father" lazy="false"> > > > > <!-- identity mapping --> > > > <id name="ID" unsaved-value="any"> > > > <column name="ID" /> > > > <generator class="native" /> > > > </id> > > > > <bag name="children" cascade="save-update" lazy="false"> > > > <key column="father_id" /> > > > <one-to-many class="child" /> > > > </bag> > > > > </class> > > > > AND Child: > > > > <class name="child" table="child" lazy="false"> > > > > <!-- identity mapping --> > > > <id name="ID" unsaved-value="any"> > > > <column name="ID" /> > > > <generator class="native" /> > > > </id> > > > > <many-to-one name="my_father" > > > class="father" > > > column="father_id" > > > cascade="none" lazy="false" not-null="true"/> > > > > </class> > > > > This mapping says - > > > A father can have multiple children. > > > A child can have only one father. > > > > IF the previously defined mapping and constraints are CORRECT - > > > then my confusion is regarding many-to-any. > > > > That is because many-to-any needs to be within a set element > > > > <set> > > > <many-to-any ..../> > > > </set> > > > > which is throwing me off the multiplicity of the association here! > > > I mean.. I expected it to be like many-to-one ... but with the "one" > > > part being heterogeneous. > > > > Please help! > > > > thanks. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "nhusers" 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/nhusers?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~--- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "nhusers" 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/nhusers?hl=en.
