I wound up with the mapping below which kind of works but would work
better if I could keep the combination of the natural-id and
discriminator unique. Two questions:
1) is this intentional or is there some way I am missing to map both
columns as part of a unique key?
2) The main reason I want to use inheritance here is so make it easy
for an ActivitySubject to have the one to many relationship with
Allocation. I am tempted to try an Any mapping instead (once I
understand that better). If keeping discriminator from participating
in a unique index with another column intentional, is there some
obvious design flaw / obvious answer?
Cheers,
Berryl
<class name="ActivitySubject" table="ActivitySubjects" discriminator-
value="BASE_CLASS">
<id name="Id" unsaved-value="0">
<column name="ActivitySubjectId" />
<generator class="hilo" />
</id>
<discriminator column="ActivitySubjectType" type="System.String" />
<natural-id mutable="true">
<property name="BusinessId" length="25" not-null="true" />
</natural-id>
<property name="Description" length="75" not-null="true" />
<set access="field.camelcase-underscore" cascade="all-delete-orphan"
inverse="true" name="Allocations">
<key foreign-key="Allocations_Resource_FK">
<column name="ActivityId" />
</key>
<one-to-many class="Allocation />
</set>
--
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.
