Oops, Adding the mailing list.
Thanks for the input, we went for two explicit table names in the OGM test.
Looks like we are aligned.
Emmanuel
> On 18 mars 2015, at 18:59, Steve Ebersole <st...@hibernate.org> wrote:
>
> Well considering I am the only recipient... ;)
>
> I have actually seen this scenario in one of your annotation test cases.
> Currently, the outcome is actually highly dependent upon the naming strategy
> used. In my opinion, this should be an invalid mapping. The spec may or may
> not back me up there, but to me it just "feels" wrong.
>
>
>
>> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Emmanuel Bernard <emman...@hibernate.org>
>> wrote:
>> Hi Steve and all,
>>
>> There is a borderline case that Hibenate OGM trips on. I would like to
>> know whether you consider this case valid enough or if we can safely
>> ignore it.
>>
>> @Entity
>> public class SnowFlake {
>> @Id
>> private String id;
>> private String description;
>> }
>>
>> @Entity
>> public class Cloud {
>> @Id
>> private String id;
>> private String type;
>> private double length;
>> @OneToMany
>> @JoinTable
>> private Set<SnowFlake> producedSnowFlakes = new HashSet<SnowFlake>();
>> @OneToMany
>> @JoinTable
>> private Set<SnowFlake> backupSnowFlakes = new HashSet<SnowFlake>();
>> }
>>
>> Here, producedSnowFlakes and backupSnowFlakes have the set semantic, so a PK
>> is
>> created for the association tables. Except that we use the same association
>> table name Cloud_SnowFlake) for both. The PK offered in Hibernate ORM
>> metadata
>> ends up being wrong.
>> The runtime code works as the target fk columns are named differently.
>>
>> I have always considered it wrong to share the same table for two
>> associations.
>> Are you with me, or should we try to amke the ORM physical model smarter to
>> relax the PK generation when an association table is shared?
>>
>> Emmanuel
>
_______________________________________________
hibernate-dev mailing list
hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
