Mailing-List: contact users-help@openjpa.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: users@openjpa.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: 216.139.236.26 is neither permitted
 nor denied by domain of marc.walter@sbb.ch)
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 08:28:43 -0800 (PST)
From: "M. Walter" <marc.walter@sbb.ch>
To: users@openjpa.apache.org
Message-ID: <1320856123952-6978516.post@n2.nabble.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAP=qHCv2cWOK-2QSYkR4Y+JQvtftZiwOW03cJX1a0e8LbZ-AWg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1320850642796-6978223.post@n2.nabble.com>
 <CAP=qHCt-TX9bvLmuit_JUt8wPgS4ypjW5v24JYWQXcOgTb9i1w@mail.gmail.com>
 <1320852180834-6978287.post@n2.nabble.com>
 <CAP=qHCv2cWOK-2QSYkR4Y+JQvtftZiwOW03cJX1a0e8LbZ-AWg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Constraint violation using OneToOne relationship
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi Rick,

thank you for the fast responses!

Yes I successfully tried the solution IBM proposed.

But why do I have to add this property just for OneToOne relationships in
order to make them work properly? For all other relationships this is not
necessary. I really would like to understand this difference.

Are there any side effects for the persistence mappings by adding the
openjpa.jdbc.SchemaFactory property to the PU? I'm suspicious of adding
properties to get things to work which in my opinion should work without
further configuration. I wonder if creating both sides of a OneToOne
relationship and persisting them by saving the parent entity is a special
case.

--
View this message in context: http://openjpa.208410.n2.nabble.com/Constraint-violation-using-OneToOne-relationship-tp6978223p6978516.html
Sent from the OpenJPA Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.