I see how that could work, but wouldn't that also remove all of the handy child functions that the onetomany relationship would give you?
On Oct 15, 12:31 pm, "Paul Marcotte" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi John, > > I would suggest using a manytoone for nesting categories. The object > definition for your category would include > > <manytoone name="Parent" lazy="true"> > <link to="Category" column="category_parent_id"/> > </manytoone> > > Note that if you use a table column for an object relationship, you cannot > have a property referencing the same column. I'm guessing that is why your > sql has two references to category_parent_id. > > Cheers, > > Paul > > > > On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 7:32 AM, John Barlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Greetings all, > > > I've been racking my brain for about two days to try to figure this > > out. I have a category table, consisting of, among other things, a > > category_id and a category_parent_id. The idea is that categories can > > be sub categories of others (hence the category_parent_id) and have a > > null parent if they are the root node. > > > I set up a onetomany relationship linking the category_id to the > > parent_id with lazy loading and everything was working beautifully for > > reading. The problem cropped up when I tried to save a record. > > > The error that came back was a SQL error, stating "category_parent_id > > appears more than once in the result column list." From what I can > > find, this error occurs if you have two tables and have the > > relationship defined on both tables. The solution there is to remove > > a relationship definition from one of the tables and all is well. > > > Since this is referencing itself, it is inherently getting both sides > > of the definition defined, which I think is what is causing this to > > break. I checked the SQL, and indeed it is taking on an extra > > category_parent_id to the end of the insert statement. > > > I'm not sure if this is a Transfer bug or if I'm trying to use it in a > > way it wasn't meant to, but having a self-referencing table like this > > seems like a reasonable thing one would want to be able to model. For > > the record, I did get around it by using a link table that has two > > columns that point to the category_id field in the category table and > > a Many to Many relationship. Ideally, I'd like to not use an extra > > table to do this. > > > I just wanted to bring this to the masses because I couldn't find > > anything on this and felt it may have been overlooked. What I WAS > > able to find was in reference to hibernate. > > > System specs: > > -Transfer 1.0 > > -CF7 > > -MSSQL 2005 > > -XP > > -- > Paul Marcotte > Fancy Bread - in the heart or in the head?http://www.fancybread.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Before posting questions to the group please read: http://groups.google.com/group/transfer-dev/web/how-to-ask-support-questions-on-transfer You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transfer-dev" 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/transfer-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
