Mailing-List: contact users-help@openjpa.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: users@openjpa.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of genewoo@gmail.com designates
 209.85.146.183 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references;
        b=BwTLiyNO1/6JaHvWk++e2tQqSSsjxrSsgucic7II7bZ+qbSf4+yXLEBKG2KB3MdDw/gY5zJoxD2I0eRIYNPbrmJMWCcI2Lw0LEVWkpF5dwyrPb9i52oWmNQPaO+65l2KKS0PhIZ1NsX4ZlgP0MkBm2Ck2EnjDbqD7YXTJUeJ2PY=
Message-ID: <a8fbf8d30712132303o3ec34c15oe2aaffbffabce455@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:03:02 +0800
From: "Gene Woo" <genewoo@gmail.com>
To: users@openjpa.apache.org
Subject: Re: OneToMany(mappedBy...) special case
In-Reply-To: <b0a94a6d0712131454s2b9962a3oa63ed57c5170604b@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_Part_5538_13866198.1197615782176"
References: <b0a94a6d0712131454s2b9962a3oa63ed57c5170604b@mail.gmail.com>

------=_Part_5538_13866198.1197615782176
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Hi,

PartyRole could have 2 fields in Set<PartyRelationship>:
* private @OneToMany(mappedBy="primaryPartyRole")Set<PartyRelationship>
primaryRelationships;
 private @OneToMany(mappedBy="secondaryPartyRole")Set<PartyRelationship>
secondaryRelationships;*

then you could have a method to merge then together. Set is quite easy to
merge, right?
*public Set<PartyRelationship> getPartyRelationships();*

In my opinion, the combination of primaryRelationships and
sencondaryRelationships is a business view of PartyRole model. So you
probably have separate field for persistence purpose.

Thanks,

Gene.

On Dec 14, 2007 6:54 AM, Alexander Saint Croix <saintx.opensource@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hello again,
>
> I have been having a little difficulty determining how to map a special
> case
> of a OneToMany relationship between two of my entity beans.
>
> The first bean, PartyRole, defines a OneToMany relationship to the second
> bean, PartyRelationship by way of a Set<PartyRelationship>.  The second
> bean, PartyRelationship, has TWO mappings back to PartyRole.
> PrimaryPartyRole and SecondaryPartyRole.  PrimaryPartyRole and
> SecondaryPartyRole.  Each of these mappings should be ManyToOne.  The
> relationship is bidirectional in each case.
>
> However, I'm not sure whether there is a way to define the "mappedBy"
> annotation attribute in PartyRole to correctly identify each field as
> owning
> side of their respective relationship.  Can I say
> @OneToMany(mappedBy="primaryPartyRole, secondaryPartyRole")?  Something
> tells me no.
>
> If this is not possible, is there another way to accomplish this?  Perhaps
> an object that represents a link table between these two entities?
>
> Kind regards,
> --
> Alexander R. Saint Croix
>


-- 
Best Regards,

Gene Woo

------=_Part_5538_13866198.1197615782176--