Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-db-ojb-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 45211 invoked from network); 11 Aug 2005 06:17:50 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 11 Aug 2005 06:17:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 610 invoked by uid 500); 11 Aug 2005 06:17:50 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-db-ojb-dev-archive@db.apache.org Received: (qmail 441 invoked by uid 500); 11 Aug 2005 06:17:49 -0000 Mailing-List: contact ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "OJB Developers List" Reply-To: "OJB Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list ojb-dev@db.apache.org Received: (qmail 79088 invoked by uid 99); 10 Aug 2005 23:16:36 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Message-ID: <585207911.1123715795841.JavaMail.jira@ajax.apache.org> Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 01:16:35 +0200 (CEST) From: "Thomas Dudziak (JIRA)" To: ojb-dev@db.apache.org Subject: [jira] Assigned: (OJB-67) Add a new check to the xdoclet module to avoid weird mapping errors of one-to-many relationships In-Reply-To: <1442987636.1123701755447.JavaMail.jira@ajax.apache.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N [ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OJB-67?page=all ] Thomas Dudziak reassigned OJB-67: --------------------------------- Assign To: Thomas Dudziak > Add a new check to the xdoclet module to avoid weird mapping errors of one-to-many relationships > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Key: OJB-67 > URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OJB-67 > Project: OJB > Type: Improvement > Versions: 1.0.3 > Environment: OJB 1.0.3 > Reporter: Guillaume Laforge > Assignee: Thomas Dudziak > > I had a weird transaction problem, where I couldn't manage to store a one-to-many relationship within a transaction. > This was quite misleading, because in fact, that was just a mapping problem. > I mistakenly used both foreignkey and remote-foreignkey pointing at the same column, though the remote-foreignkey wasn't needed since that was a one-to-many relationship and not a many-to-many relationship. > So the idea would be to add a sanity check to verify that you can't have both foreignkey and remote-foreignkey attributes pointing at the same column. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa - For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org