Mailing-List: contact torque-user-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Apache Torque Users List" <torque-user@db.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (hermes.apache.org: local policy)
Subject: AW: Saving associated objects
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 15:22:24 +0100
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Message-ID: <9B336061971E8B4E8A324C63BEB2D2EE8C0CB7@ex1.GT.local>
Thread-Topic: Saving associated objects
Thread-Index: AcTdL0tkiCqXtx+jQB+q/fmDH/rnVAAAeqbg
From: "Vitzethum, Daniel" <Daniel.Vitzethum@gigatronik.com>
To: "Apache Torque Users List" <torque-user@db.apache.org>

Hi Thomas,

> I am not sure if I understand the question.

you did ;-)

> (...)
> If you have a real 1:1 behaviour, you can put the foreign key on the
> other side, ...

Indeed it is a 1:1 thing. So it would be possible to switch the FK's
location. But then I'd lose the information in my  "n" table if there
is something associated or not (FK =3D null).

> If you do not have too many  relations of this sort, a solution would
> be to override the save(..) methods in the persistent Objects.

I choose that one! My solution, worked fine on first try:

Overriding save(Connection):
---snip---
public void save(Connection con) throws TorqueException {
  if (getOtherObject() !=3D null) {
    getOtherObject().save(con);
    setFkOtherObjectId(getOtherObject().getOtherObjectId());
  }
  super.save(con);
}
---snip---


Thank you!

Daniel

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: torque-user-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: torque-user-help@db.apache.org