Table A has aID (PK), Table B has bID (PK), table A_B has:
aID (PK, FK), bID (PK, FK), num
I tried
property name="As" fieldtype="many-to-one" cfc="A" fkcolumn="aID";
property name="Bs" fieldtype="many-to-one" cfc="B" fkcolumn="bID";
property name="num" type="numeric";
but CF keep asking me for an ID column... what can I do? The FK's
should be the PK's.
If there's no way to specify it in CFC, how to represent this link
table in hbmxml?
Thx
The problem is ColdFusion forces you to use an ID in your entity, if it
doesn't exist then it cracks it. This is a huge problem with legacy
databases as well, or any DB not designed by an ORM.
I tried
Thx
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"cf-orm-dev" group.
To post to this group, send email to cf-or...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
cf-orm-dev+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/cf-orm-dev?hl=en.
Henry
On Dec 28, 1:56 am, Glen dunlop <glen.dun...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Andrew I read that blog you refer to, and I am amazed to be honest how a
> company could have released a product that has this many problems with it?
>
> Was this ever discussed on the so called pre-release forums?
>
--
If you are a developer building an object-based application and you are utilizing Hibernate, why would you look at it from the DB POV? That doesn't even make sense to me. Not to mention the fact that from a DB POV, in my opinion, it makes things much simpler to set up a unique key on the two columns in the first place. :-)
Translation: I'm with Brian on this one.
Brian,You know when you spread untruths it makes people think about it some, I only ever not allowed one of your comments. And the reason behind that was that it was full of XML crap, it can be considered slanderess if you sit back and tell people that I continue to ignore your comments on my blog when that is not in fact true.
As for Adobe being helpful, it was raised in the pre-release when I first started looking at the ORM in ColdFusion 9. Everytime I brought up the fact that it didn't work with legacy databases, everyone just point blank ignored it. Because I used grails as an example on how it should have been handled and implemented to give an example, not on how it should be done, but on how others had approached the problem.
not one person was interested to hear how grails had solved the problem, least of all Adobe so how is that being helpful?I personally got sick of everyone jumping on my back everytime I mentione that grails could do it, so if they had found a solution then why couldn't Adobe do it in ColdFusion 9? So before you attack me in public, have a real hard look at those that attacked me when I was trying to improve the product, over 14 months ago!!
Brian,
What do you consider the norm then?
If one was to look at it this way, the majority of users would be upgrading their existing applications over to ColdFusion 9. This means that there will be a high majority of users who will be looking at trying to get their existing Database over to the new CF-ORM. With the problems that currently exist in the ORM, like forcing a user to have a unique ID field or not being able to map to primary keys and foreign keys correctly.
How can you sit there, and talk about what the norm is. Isn't that like Adobe sitting back and saying we will design it this way, because we expect that to be the use case, and then they find that this is not the case as they have continued to do.
Sorry but for me the Norm, is more people will be trying to map their current applications/databases into hibernate and have nothing but headaches.
This was apparently raised on the pre-release forums over 12 months ago from what I have been told, and Adobe have chosen to ignore it. So if Adobe are that helpful as you are claiming, then why has Adobe allowed this problem to exist?
On the matter of grails, I have never said that I was right anytime I mentioned grails. But to point blank be shot down, and harrassed every time I did make that comparison says a lot for those people. Sure it could have been debated/discussed further but it never was, people just assumed what they thought there and then, and we'll leave it at that.And yes I said it too, even to the Adobe engineers and the pre-release forums that Adobe could have and I will say it very clearly they could have learned a lot by a language that had already gone through it. However they chose to not do so, and they also chose to ignore backward compatability issues and the more work that is required to get around the problem.Adobe have continued to sit back and make the claim of Rapid Application Development, and everytime it was suggested to improve areas that would help make it/keep that status they refused to acknowledge anything. Every E/R that was raised was SP5'ed, that tells me that they don't give rats ass about keeping the language RAD, it also tells me that on one hand when they claim that there user base wouldn't underastand something. They go an do the exact opposite with the other hand, that is not only confusing to begin with. But it makes Adobe look bad because they release something that they put a lot of thought into making one section easier for their core market as they put it, then they make it damn confusing because they didn't make it easier for those getting to know the new ORM making the language again evermore confusing.If you read the blogs/tweets and all other information out there about how ColdFusion is bad, and why it is bad. It boils down to confusion within the lnaguage, and the testimont of some of the new features in ColdFusion 9 taking on an OO approach and the rest of it taking on a procedual approach makes it even more confusing leaving people thinking WTF!!I never claimed to be alwasy right Brian, but I take huge accpetion to people just bagging me becuase they think they can. Or they think that because I chose to use a comparison with a language that Adobe could take notes from, that certain people would just go OMG here he goes again he just wont shut up about grails. But if those people actually stopped in the first place, and read further they would have seen more information that could have helped mould the language to something far better than what it is now.
Its funny how abusive Andrew has been on this and other listservs and
when someone finally stands up to him, they become the 'bad guy'. Are
we in Bizarro World?
> --
>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "cf-orm-dev" group.
> To post to this group, send email to cf-or...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> cf-orm-dev+...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/cf-orm-dev?hl=en.
>
--
Scott Stroz
---------------
The DOM is retarded.
I fail to see anything inappropriate with anything Brian said. Nor do
I think he is 'hiding behind the skirts of the community'.
>
> If you ask me what Brian did was fuel it further to begin with, if he is not
> man enough to fight his own battles when challenged then how does that make
> Brian the bigger man. I asked Brian if he was reading it, that to be the
> bigger man he should think more about what statement he was saying by his
> comments.
'fueled it further to begin with' - if he fueled it further, how can
it be the beginning? I fail to see how he did not 'fight his own
battle'. He signed the email, we all know it came form him. Nor has he
denied the message came from him.
>
> As far as Andrew goes, so he is out spoken and a passionate ColdFusion
> developer, does that give you and Brian the right to call him a liar in
> public. And then harrass him when he answers his critics?
You call him 'outspoken' I would use other words to describe him, none
of which are appropriate for mixed company. From the attitude he has
displayed on this and other lists, there are a lot of people who would
agree with me. Though, I am sure you will accuse me of 'hiding behind
the skirt of other people' for that.
>
> Have a good think about that one Scott, put yourself in Andrews shoes fort a
> minute and if you found that someone was chatting about you telling lies,
> and then when you confronted that person with what could be the truth you
> are attacked even further.
I do not think Andrew was being attacked at all. Andrew is far from
being the innocent victim you are making him out to be. Honestly, if
Andrew is really incensed by what Brian said, maybe he should put
himself in the shoes of every person he has ever belittled on every
mailing list he has been a part of. That might help with some
perspective on his end.
>> As far as Andrew goes, so he is out spoken and a passionate ColdFusion
>> developer, does that give you and Brian the right to call him a liar in
>> public. And then harrass him when he answers his critics?
>
> You call him 'outspoken' I would use other words to describe him, none
> of which are appropriate for mixed company. From the attitude he has
> displayed on this and other lists, there are a lot of people who would
> agree with me. Though, I am sure you will accuse me of 'hiding behind
> the skirt of other people' for that.
Ye kin hide behent mae kilt ony time Scott :-)
Peter
This list is meant to be a resource for people to discuss questions
about and techniques with CF's Hibernate integration, which has not
been the focus of this thread for several messages.
To everyone involved, let's please let this thread die now.
Thanks,
Bob
On Wednesday, December 30, 2009, Victoria Ryder <vic...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Is this a community support list or Fight Club? I joined mere days ago and am regretting it. What silliness.
--
Bob Silverberg
www.silverwareconsulting.com
You are totally correct. And I apologize to everyone for continuing
the spiraling of this thread the last few days.
> --
>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "cf-orm-dev" group.
> To post to this group, send email to cf-or...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cf-orm-dev+...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cf-orm-dev?hl=en.
>
>
>
--
I have used this code to successfully use a link table, however I have
tried to adapt it to add a primary key to the link table but everytime
i do I get the DDL Export Error, am wondering how to adapt the code
for the link table to allow an autogenerated primary key
Many thanks
On Dec 28 2009, 11:16 pm, Brian Kotek <brian...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In that case, try:
>
> component displayname="role" persistent="true" accessors="true"
> table="usero_roleo"
> {
> property name="user" fieldtype="id,many-to-one" cfc="UserO"
> cascade="all" fkcolumn="user_id";
> property name="role" fieldtype="id,many-to-one" cfc="RoleO"
> cascade="all" fkcolumn="role_id";
> property name="num" type="numeric";
>
> }
> On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 5:38 PM, Henry Ho <henryho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Yes, if you look at it from the Hibernate POV. However, it doesn't make
> > sense to set up the DB that way if you're look at if from the DB POV. 2
> > FK's as PK's would be the most logical choice in my opinion.
>
> > Thanks,
> > Henry
>
> > On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 2:34 PM, Brian Kotek <brian...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Setting up the unique key on the two columns should accomplish the same
> >> thing, yes?
>
> >> On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Henry Ho <henryho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> The reason I want to use the 2 FK's as PK's because then I can enforce
> >>> that one User has only one type of UserRole. It is hard to enforce that if
> >>> the link table has its own unique key, unless I add an index on both
> >>> property, which is essentially the same as using those 2 FKs as PKs.
>
> >>> Thx
> >>> Henry
>
> >>> --
> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> >> "cf-orm-dev" group.
> >> To post to this group, send email to cf-or...@googlegroups.com.
> >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> >> cf-orm-dev+...@googlegroups.com<cf-orm-dev%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> >> .
> >> For more options, visit this group at
> >>http://groups.google.com/group/cf-orm-dev?hl=en.
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "cf-orm-dev" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to cf-or...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > cf-orm-dev+...@googlegroups.com<cf-orm-dev%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
When updating a problem (eg. problem with iProblemId =2), that may
have many categories, I need to delete all entries in the linktable
"problemCategory" where iProblemId = 2, so I can then add the new
categories for that problem afrresh
I presume there needs to be a primary key in the problemCategory table
for me to delete any entries?
Thanks
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "cf-orm-dev" group.
To post to this group, send email to cf-or...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cf-orm-dev+...@googlegroups.com.
I appreciate the help, will give it a go at work tomorrow and let you
know how it goes
Many thanks
> > cf-orm-dev+...@googlegroups.com<cf-orm-dev%2Bunsubscribe@googlegrou ps.com>