Srilakshmi Machineni wrote:
Hi Armin,
The value for "abc" is not the same for both parent references. In
fact thats how we differentiate the data. If one always overrides the
other, does that mean we have to change the database structure? Or is
there any other work around?
sorry no, I don't know a workaround (how to store different values in
the same field/column). Think you have to add another FK column (then
you can use abc1 and abc2 - same as for parentId and paren2Id).
regards,
Armin
Thanks Sri.
----- Original Message ---- From: Armin Waibel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: OJB Users List <ojb-user@db.apache.org> Sent: Wednesday, February
14, 2007 3:28:54 PM Subject: Re: Problem with multiple composite keys
Hi Srilakshmi,
Srilakshmi Machineni wrote:
Armin, Thanks for your response. I am not sure if this is a problem
with the bidirectional reference. We have these references
throughout the application. We store the child in two steps but its
the same error. As of now we first store the child table without
references and then store the parent table and then the reference
to the parent table in the child table. Could sharing of the
composite keys be a problem?
Oh, now I got it. You are right, the problem is the shared FK 'abc' -
one will always override the other. Has 'abc' always the same value
for both parent references?
regards, Armin
Thanks Sri.
----- Original Message ---- From: Armin Waibel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: OJB Users List <ojb-user@db.apache.org> Sent: Wednesday,
February 14, 2007 11:40:04 AM Subject: Re: Problem with multiple
composite keys
Hi,
could this problem be caused by the bidirectional references? How
do you store the child object? If you store the object in two steps
does this prevent the error:
broker.beginTransaction(); // store child without references
broker.store(child); // now set the references child.setParent(p1)
p1.setChild(c); ... // update child broker.store(child);
broker.commitTransaction();
regards, Armin
Srilakshmi Machineni wrote:
Hello, We are currently using OJB 1.0.1 . We have a table that is
a child to two different tables. These two parent tables have
composite primary keys and they share part of the keys in the
child table. The child has a 1:1 relation to both the parents.
The tables look something like this:
CREATE TABLE "CHILD" ( "CHILD_ID" INTEGER NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY,
"PARENT_ID" INTEGER , "ABC" INTEGER , "PARENT2_ID" INTEGER )
ALTER TABLE "CHILD" ADD CONSTRAINT "PARENT2_FK" FOREIGN KEY
("PARENT2_ID", "ABC") REFERENCES "PARENT2" ("PARENT_ID", "ABC")
ALTER TABLE "CHILD" ADD CONSTRAINT "PARENT1_FK" FOREIGN KEY
("PARENT_ID", "ABC") REFERENCES "PARENT" ("PARENT_ID", "ABC")
CREATE TABLE "PARENT" ( "PARENT_ID" INTEGER NOT NULL, "ABC"
INTEGER NOT NULL) ALTER TABLE "PARENT" ADD CONSTRAINT "PK1"
PRIMARY KEY ("PARENT_ID", "ABC");
CREATE TABLE "PARENT2" ( "PARENT2_ID" INTEGER NOT NULL, "ABC"
INTEGER NOT NULL) ALTER TABLE "PARENT2" ADD CONSTRAINT "PK1"
PRIMARY KEY ("PARENT2_ID", "ABC");
The OJB Classes:: class Child{ private Integer childId; private
Integer parentId; private Integer abc; private Integer parent2Id;
//rel private Parent parent; private Parent2 parent2; }
class Parent{ private Integer parentId; private Integer abc;
//rel private Child child; }
class Parent2{ private Integer parent2Id; private Integer abc;
//rel private Child child; }
The repository mapping:
<class-descriptor class="Child" table="CHILD"> <field-descriptor
name="childId" column="CHILD_ID" primarykey="true"
jdbc-type="INTEGER"/> <field-descriptor name="parentId"
column="PARENT_ID" jdbc-type="INTEGER"/> <field-descriptor
name="abc" column="ABC" jdbc-type="INTEGER"/> <field-descriptor
name="parent2Id" column="PARENT2_ID" jdbc-type="INTEGER"/>
<reference-descriptor name="parent" class-ref="Parent">
<foreignkey field-ref="parentId" /> <foreignkey field-ref="abc"
/> </reference-descriptor> <reference-descriptor name="parent2"
class-ref="Parent2"> <foreignkey field-ref="parent2Id" />
<foreignkey field-ref="abc" /> </reference-descriptor>
</class-descriptor>
<class-descriptor class="Parent" table="PARENT">
<field-descriptor name="parentId" column="PARENT_ID"
primarykey="true" jdbc-type="INTEGER"/> <field-descriptor
name="abc" column="ABC" primarykey="true" jdbc-type="INTEGER"/>
<reference-descriptor name="child" class-ref="Child"> <foreignkey
field-ref="parentId" /> <foreignkey field-ref="abc" />
</reference-descriptor> </class-descriptor>
<class-descriptor class="parent2" table="PARENT">
<field-descriptor name="parent2Id" column="PARENT2_ID"
primarykey="true" jdbc-type="INTEGER"/> <field-descriptor
name="abc" column="ABC" primarykey="true" jdbc-type="INTEGER"/>
<reference-descriptor name="child" class-ref="child"> <foreignkey
field-ref="parent2Id" /> <foreignkey field-ref="abc" />
</reference-descriptor>
</class-descriptor>
When storing the child table, it is possible that data from only
one of the parent tables is populated. When I am trying to store
in that database, I dont have a problem when I call the set
method on one of the parent objects of the child but when I try
to refer the second parent in the same manner, I am getting a sql
exception that says that data does not exist in the parent table
and the transaction is being rolled back(The parent object is
stored in the database first...). I have tried removing the OJB
relation and manually setting the foreign key fields for the
second parent. In this case I am able to store the part of the
key that is not shared but the shared part is being set to null
in the database. I have also tried to make one of them a
collection-descriptor. I got the same sql exception. I am not
sure if there is a problem with how the database is setup or how
my OJB mappings are and classes are setup. At this point, short
of making a database change, I feel I have exhausted all
available option. Am I missing something? Any advice would be
appreciated..
Thanks, -Sri.
____________________________________________________________________________________
TV dinner still cooling? Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo!
TV. http://tv.yahoo.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For
additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For
additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
____________________________________________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail
beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For
additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For
additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
____________________________________________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail
beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For
additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
