Thomas Fischer schrieb: >> <table name="novos_jogadores" javaName="NovoJogador"> >> <column name="id" javaName="id" primaryKey="true" > required="true" >> type="INTEGER" /> >> <foreign-key foreignTable="jogadores" name="id"> >> <reference local="id" foreign="novo_jogador_id" /> >> </foreign-key> >> </table> >> >> <table name="jogadores" javaName="Jogador"> >> <column name="id" javaName="id" primaryKey="true" > required="true" >> type="INTEGER" /> >> <column name="novo_jogador_id" javaName="novoJogadorId" >> type="INTEGER" /> >> <foreign-key foreignTable="novos_jogadores" > name="novo_jogador_id"> >> <reference local="novo_jogador_id" foreign="id" /> >> </foreign-key> >> </table> >> >> on the table 'novos_jogadores' i mapped 'id' as foreign key referencing > a >> foreign key on 'jogadores', this forces the generator to build a >> NovoJogadorPeer.getJogador(NovoJogador x), is any problem with this kind > of >> mapping with updates, deletions and insertions? > > Looks strange to me. I usually model a 1:1 relation like a 1:n relation > (of which the 1:1 relation is a special case) > Torqe treats this as a circular relationship rather than a 1:1 > relationship so things can happen that you'd not expect. > > But if it works for you, nobody prevents you from modeling the > relationship like you did. > > Thomas
As far as I know there is a problem when using the Torque ID Broker (ID_TABLE). Due to the fact, that there a entries for every table, there might be problems if the nex ID for table novos_jogadores differs from the next ID for table jogadores. This happens if you insert in one table, but not in the other. You use FKs in both tables, so this might not happen in your schema. greetings Philip --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
