Comments below...
> Got it now ... but it is still not seeing eye to eye ... comments below ..
>
> Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>
> > Dave,
> >
> > We still don't see eye-to-eye, and I think I made the problem worse with
my
> > example.
> >
> > I think the most common type of relationship will be someth
Got it now ... but it is still not seeing eye to eye ... comments below ..
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> Dave,
>
> We still don't see eye-to-eye, and I think I made the problem worse with my
> example.
>
> I think the most common type of relationship will be something like 'a cd
> has an artist' or
I must say that not only is this list very informative, you never know what
you're going to see next! It's fun too!
Hunter
> From: "marc fleury" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 10:28:45 -0400
> To: <[EMAIL PROTE
|I still believe there is overkill for the simple cases
|
|which will be the majority of cases. This is something that many
hmmm I am a cretin when it comes to db stuff but anything that makes the
lives of *most* people better as opposed to the lives of everyone blah is a
good thing. Never design
Dave,
We still don't see eye-to-eye, and I think I made the problem worse with my
example.
I think the most common type of relationship will be something like 'a cd
has an artist' or 'a cd has a publisher.' In this cases, the foreign key
for the artist or publisher would be just another column
Sorry if this is posted twice!
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> Dave,
>
>
>>After reviewing these comments I think we are making this way more
>>complicated than it has to be. As far as I am concerned we should only
>>need the relationship stuff in jbosscmp-jdbc.xml for relationships that
>>use a
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> Dave,
>
>
>>After reviewing these comments I think we are making this way more
>>complicated than it has to be. As far as I am concerned we should only
>>need the relationship stuff in jbosscmp-jdbc.xml for relationships that
>>use a relation table (ex. self relation e
Dave,
> After reviewing these comments I think we are making this way more
> complicated than it has to be. As far as I am concerned we should only
> need the relationship stuff in jbosscmp-jdbc.xml for relationships that
> use a relation table (ex. self relation employee/manager, just to
> contr
After reviewing these comments I think we are making this way more
complicated than it has to be. As far as I am concerned we should only
need the relationship stuff in jbosscmp-jdbc.xml for relationships that
use a relation table (ex. self relation employee/manager, just to
control the name a
Dave,
Ok, I see the misunderstanding now. I thought you were talking about the
jbosscmp-jdbc.xml file and you were talking about the ejb-jar.xml file. You
are correct in that a single relation can only have one cmr field on each
side of the relationship. From my perspective these are object lay
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>>I am playing with the current sources and testing a 1 to many
>>relationship. I have the following two tables
>>
>>order with pk: int objectid
>>
>
> ok
>
>
>>and
>>orderdetail
>>pk: int order_oid,int line_num
>>
>
> Does order detail have a compund key usi
> I am playing with the current sources and testing a 1 to many
> relationship. I have the following two tables
>
> order with pk: int objectid
ok
> and
> orderdetail
> pk: int order_oid,int line_num
Does order detail have a compund key using both order_oid and line_num?
> The link..
> order_
I am playing with the current sources and testing a 1 to many
relationship. I have the following two tables
order with pk: int objectid
and
orderdetail
pk: int order_oid,int line_num
The link..
order_oid=objectid
There is a 1 to many relationship between Order and orderdetail. When
you go to
13 matches
Mail list logo
