ove the problem
exists if someone could point me at an example of how you normally do
it.
-Original Message-
From: Andrus Adamchik [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 11:33 AM
To: user@cayenne.apache.org
Subject: Re: one-to-many problem
Sorry I didn't have a chance to i
)
In any case, I'd be happy to write a test case to prove the problem
exists if someone could point me at an example of how you normally do
it.
-Original Message-
From: Andrus Adamchik [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 11:33 AM
To: user@cayenne.apache.org
Subject:
Sorry I didn't have a chance to investigate this more deeply. I think
you can also tag both columns as a compound PK.
Andrus
On May 16, 2008, at 11:28 AM, Scott Anderson wrote:
I was able to work around this by removing command.id from the model
and
changing command.name to the PK. This see
I was able to work around this by removing command.id from the model and
changing command.name to the PK. This seems to work transparently, since
the id column is auto-generated by the DB in the existing schema.
In any case, it sounds like a bug to me. I definitely can't think of any
reason why th
Also worth noting: I still can't seem to crack my original problem. Can
anyone reproduce it?
-Original Message-
From: Scott Anderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 5:16 PM
To: user@cayenne.apache.org
Subject: RE: one-to-many problem
That makes sense, but I
he reverse
of the relationship being ON DELETE CASCADE.
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Mike Kienenberger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Sent: Mon 5/12/2008 7:16 PM
> To: user@cayenne.apache.org
> Subject: Re: one-to-many problem
>
> Yeah, in retrospect it won't work b
SCADE.
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Mike Kienenberger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Sent: Mon 5/12/2008 7:16 PM
> To: user@cayenne.apache.org
> Subject: Re: one-to-many problem
>
> Yeah, in retrospect it won't work because command.name isn&
On May 12, 2008, at 10:18 PM, Scott Anderson wrote:
Seems like a pointless annotation; vaguely equivalent to the reverse
of the relationship being ON DELETE CASCADE.
Not really. It tells Cayenne which table owns the PK and which table
borrows it from master. E.g. consider many-to-many case
Seems like a pointless annotation; vaguely equivalent to the reverse of the
relationship being ON DELETE CASCADE.
-Original Message-
From: Mike Kienenberger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Mon 5/12/2008 7:16 PM
To: user@cayenne.apache.org
Subject: Re: one-to-many problem
Yeah, in
the
> documentation for it about 100 times and I still can't make heads or
> tails of it.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Mike Kienenberger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 6:57 PM
> To: user@cayenne.apache.org
> Subject: Re: one
rg
Subject: Re: one-to-many problem
One thing you could try is to make command.name -> command_alias.name
to-dependent-key=true if it's not already set that way. Don't know if
it'll help, though.
On 5/12/08, Scott Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've got a ta
One thing you could try is to make command.name -> command_alias.name
to-dependent-key=true if it's not already set that way. Don't know if
it'll help, though.
On 5/12/08, Scott Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've got a table `command which has:
> `id` int PK
> `name` varc
12 matches
Mail list logo
