I did not. The problem was not with hibernate. The problem was that
you used hibernate annotations (JPA annotations, actually) in a way
other than their documented intent. If you annotate a field _foo,
then the property name will be _foo according to hibernate, regardless
of accessors. You can override the automatic column designation with
@Column but by default, it'll look for a column named _foo. You can
also solve it by either annotating the getter (as mentioned
elsewhere), or by renaming your variable to not use the _. Where am I
misunderstanding? My comments about tapestry were only that you could
avoid using _foo style and tapestry would continue to work.
Anyway, this is a hibernate configuration question, not a tapestry
question, so we should kill this thread on this list anyway.
Christian.
On 15-Oct-07, at 2:29 AM, Davor Hrg wrote:
maybe you missed the point here,
never mind the reason I use the _ prefix ......
the problem was with hibernate, not with tapestry....
Davor Hrg
On 10/15/07, Christian Gruber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Tapestry doesn't require _ prefixes, mind you. That's a Howard M.
Lewis Ship-ism. (actually, I have it too from my NeXTSTEP days.)
It's not mandatory, however, so on your persistent objects, you could
use the typical pattern and annotate your properties, if that's how
you want to do it. Tapestry will (it seems) do its magic on
properties taht are annotated regardless of their prefix, because
it's
the annotation that matters, not the variable name.
Christian.
On 14-Oct-07, at 4:17 PM, Davor Hrg wrote:
hi,
I've tried to adopt underscores for private fields,
so the the tutorial got mixed when I've created that page with
AngeloChen.
I'll check tomorow if this is true, but I belive you
can avoid this problem by not putting annotations
on the fields and putting them on the getters or setters instead
@Id
private long _id;
public getId()...
public setId()...
in this example hibernate will see annotation on the field
and see it as _id
if you change the code to
private long _id;
@Id
public getId()...
public setId()...
in this example hibernate will see annotation on the getter
and see it as id when "get" is stripped
!Beware. if you put annotations both on fields and getters
hibernate will loose some of them
I'll find some time and fix the code to adopt one convention
Davor Hrg
On 10/13/07, Angelo Chen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Olivier,
In that tutorial the only place with underscore is _session, the
entities
for hibernate do not have underscore, I prefer this way, it looks
normal
when u do some sql/hql queries, but for Tapestry variables ,seems
to me, a
unspoken rule here is to prefix underscore.
A.C.
Olivier-36 wrote:
Hi,
I followed the small tutorial on using hibernate with T5 here
http://wiki.apache.org/tapestry/Tapestry5HowToUseTapestryHibernate
and
it
worked like a charm. Thank you to whoever wrote this!
The example uses underscores for some private fields and sometimes
not.
Now
I want to use this in my entities but then Hibernate generates
incorrect
column names. Isn't there a way for tuning this in the
configuration
file
or something? If someone has that info, please share it with me!
Thank you in advance,
Olivier
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/T5%3A-Tapestry%2C-Hibernate-and-Underscores.-tf4614534.html#a13188869
Sent from the Tapestry - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
