From tuscany-dev-return-16480-apmail-ws-tuscany-dev-archive=ws.apache.org@ws.apache.org Wed Apr 04 05:56:24 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-ws-tuscany-dev-archive@locus.apache.org Received: (qmail 28151 invoked from network); 4 Apr 2007 05:56:23 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 4 Apr 2007 05:56:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 79040 invoked by uid 500); 4 Apr 2007 05:56:29 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-ws-tuscany-dev-archive@ws.apache.org Received: (qmail 79012 invoked by uid 500); 4 Apr 2007 05:56:29 -0000 Mailing-List: contact tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org Received: (qmail 79001 invoked by uid 99); 4 Apr 2007 05:56:29 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (140.211.11.133) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 03 Apr 2007 22:56:29 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.9 required=10.0 tests=HTML_10_20,HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of adrianocrestani@gmail.com designates 66.249.92.175 as permitted sender) Received: from [66.249.92.175] (HELO ug-out-1314.google.com) (66.249.92.175) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 03 Apr 2007 22:56:21 -0700 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id j40so586031ugd for ; Tue, 03 Apr 2007 22:55:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type; b=QgDmjKpj485fwjP5zTD5znKIOipAumKBrneDFVcYoHrEWsEXKKmS9wYm37xnlvZ8IyrLnbCweMTmQiml1/MQwSejFIDE/xMG6Uqw0rhI0is7A3v7XnDB1/KsYGKODwdYsjNI7CbYYzwIq/m+Wdse20clowifXffmUGxCHnMLDAk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type; b=B56uAXpZ0+7eqECuFNWkxlQgyJWXIYxhP2XAbFuAqDJciFABiA02IgWaa7F/+U7arAq85M1T+v76VyWMNdaFRB7hjC8Rq83LdJCttpZ6uRJY5BFBeCb27dciaSMPYF5rFLNrqNlM8FXoBUkodVhB6SKJVved0gzJele/RqPTEFY= Received: by 10.78.160.2 with SMTP id i2mr32047hue.1175666159499; Tue, 03 Apr 2007 22:55:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.78.205.4 with HTTP; Tue, 3 Apr 2007 22:55:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <55e2bf7e0704032255x23875424ifc4440a9e9034257@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 01:55:59 -0400 From: "Adriano Crestani" To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org Subject: DAS Java Convention Over Configuration question MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_15428_13629427.1175666159469" X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org ------=_Part_15428_13629427.1175666159469 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline I was wondering why the "id" field being mapped as a table PK is defined as "Convention Over Configuration". Because in java it is possible to retrieve the table PK only using java.sql.DatabaseMetaData.getPrimaryKeys(String catalog, String schema, String table) method. Does the "id" Convention Over Configuration exist only because some DBMS does not support the java.sql.DatabaseMetaData.getPrimaryKeys(String catalog, String schema, String table) method? Adriano Crestani ------=_Part_15428_13629427.1175666159469--