openjpa-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andy Schlaikjer <>
Subject Re: Question about @OneToMany
Date Thu, 08 May 2008 14:15:05 GMT
Hi Uden,

If you'd rather keep the relation unidirectional just remove the 
`children` field-- the `parent` field alone is enough to encode the 
relation without recourse to a separate join table. Either way, I don't 
see how the quoted section below results in a join table. Both fields 
rely solely on a "parent_id" column within the "ModelObject" table, not 
on some other join table. Am I missing something?


Uden wrote:
> The solution quoted below but has a consequence for the Java class model: the
> OneToMany relationship becomes bi-directional instead of uni-directional. 
> What is the reason for creating the join-table? 
> I thought (based on my database experience) that a join-table is only
> required for ManyToMany relationships. 
> If you look at the data in the join-table of a uni-directional relation (no
> mappedBy attribute), the relation between the join-table and master table is
> always OneToOne, so this relation could be handled by a FK-field in the
> detail-table.
> thanks for your explanation,
> Uden
> Andy Schlaikjer-2 wrote:
>> Marco Schwarz wrote:
>>> How can I make only 2 tables?
>> Here's my guess:
>> First, use the "mappedBy" property of the @OneToMany annotation, like
>> this:
>> @Entity
>> class ModelObject {
>>    ...
>>    @ManyToOne
>>    ModelObject parent;
>>    @OneToMany(mappedBy="parent")
>>    List<ModelObject> children;
>>    ...
>> }
>> This way, an extra join table won't be necessary to encode the parent 
>> child relationship. Only the "parent_id" column in the "ModelObject" 
>> table will be used to encode the relationship.

View raw message