Search Results

Search found 4773 results on 191 pages for 'django orm'.

Page 121/191 | < Previous Page | 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128  | Next Page >

  • Hibernate - strange order of native SQL parameters

    - by Xorty
    Hello, I am trying to use native MySQL's MD5 crypto func, so I defined custom insert in my mapping file. <hibernate-mapping package="tutorial"> <class name="com.xorty.mailclient.client.domain.User" table="user"> <id name="login" type="string" column="login"></id> <property name="password"> <column name="password" /> </property> <sql-insert>INSERT INTO user (login,password) VALUES ( ?, MD5(?) )</sql-insert> </class> </hibernate-mapping> Then I create User (pretty simple POJO with just 2 Strings - login and password) and try to persist it. session.beginTransaction(); // we have no such user in here yet User junitUser = (User) session.load(User.class, "junit_user"); assert (null == junitUser); // insert new user junitUser = new User(); junitUser.setLogin("junit_user"); junitUser.setPassword("junitpass"); session.save(junitUser); session.getTransaction().commit(); What actually happens? User is created, but with reversed parameters order. He has login "junitpass" and "junit_user" is MD5 encrypted and stored as password. What did I wrong? Thanks EDIT: ADDING POJO class package com.xorty.mailclient.client.domain; import java.io.Serializable; /** * POJO class representing user. * @author MisoV * @version 0.1 */ public class User implements Serializable { /** * Generated UID */ private static final long serialVersionUID = -969127095912324468L; private String login; private String password; /** * @return login */ public String getLogin() { return login; } /** * @return password */ public String getPassword() { return password; } /** * @param login the login to set */ public void setLogin(String login) { this.login = login; } /** * @param password the password to set */ public void setPassword(String password) { this.password = password; } /** * @see java.lang.Object#toString() * @return login */ @Override public String toString() { return login; } /** * Creates new User. * @param login User's login. * @param password User's password. */ public User(String login, String password) { setLogin(login); setPassword(password); } /** * Default constructor */ public User() { } /** * @return hashCode * @see java.lang.Object#hashCode() */ @Override public int hashCode() { final int prime = 31; int result = 1; result = prime * result + ((null == login) ? 0 : login.hashCode()); result = prime * result + ((null == password) ? 0 : password.hashCode()); return result; } /** * @param obj Compared object * @return True, if objects are same. Else false. * @see java.lang.Object#equals(java.lang.Object) */ @Override public boolean equals(Object obj) { if (this == obj) { return true; } if (obj == null) { return false; } if (!(obj instanceof User)) { return false; } User other = (User) obj; if (login == null) { if (other.login != null) { return false; } } else if (!login.equals(other.login)) { return false; } if (password == null) { if (other.password != null) { return false; } } else if (!password.equals(other.password)) { return false; } return true; } }

    Read the article

  • Hibernate bug using Oracle?

    - by Lothar
    Hello, I've got the problem, that I use a property in the persistence.xml which forces Hibernate to look only for tables in the given schema. <property name="hibernate.default_schema" value="FOO"/> Because we are using now 4 different schemas the actual solution is to generate 4 war files with a modified persistence.xml. That not very elegant. Does anybody know, how I can configure the schema with a property or by manipulation the JDBC connection string? I'm using Oracle 10g, 10_2_3 Patch. Thanks a lot.

    Read the article

  • Fluent nHibernate - How to map a non-key column on an association table?

    - by The Matt
    Taking an example that is provided on the Fluent nHibernate website, I need to extend it slightly: I need to add a 'Quantity' column to the StoreProduct table. How would I map this using nHibernate? An example mapping is provided for the given scenario above, but I'm not sure how I would get the Quantity column to map: public class StoreMap : ClassMap<Store> { public StoreMap() { Id(x => x.Id); Map(x => x.Name); HasMany(x => x.Employee) .Inverse() .Cascade.All(); HasManyToMany(x => x.Products) .Cascade.All() .Table("StoreProduct"); } }

    Read the article

  • Good design of mapping Java Domain objects to Tables (using Hibernate)

    - by M. McKenzie
    Hey guys, I have a question that is more in the realm of design, than implementation. I'm also happy for anyone to point out resources for the answer and I'll gladly, research for myself. Highly simplified Java and SQL: Say I have a business domain POJO called 'Picture' with three attributes. class Picture int idPicture String fileName long size Say I have another business domain POJO called "Item" with 3 attributes Class Item int idItem String itemName ArrayList itemPictures These would be a normal simple relationship. You could say that 'Picture' object, will never exist outside an 'Item' object. Assume a picture belongs only to a specific item, but that an item can have multiple pictures Now - using good database design (3rd Normal Form), we know that we should put items and pictures in their own tables. Here is what I assume would be correct. table Item int idItem (primary key) String itemName table Picture int idPicture (primary key) varchar(45) fileName long size int idItem (foreign key) Here is my question: If you are making Hibernate mapping files for these objects. In the data design, your Picture table needs a column to refer to the Item, so that a foreign key relation can be maintained. However,in your business domain objects - your Picture does not hold a reference/attribute to the idItem - and does not need to know it. A java Picture instance is always instantiated inside an Item instance. If you want to know the Item that the Picture belongs to you are already in the correct scope. Call myItem.getIdItem() and myItem.getItemPictures(),and you have the two pieces of information you need. I know that Hibernate tools have a generator that can auto make your POJO's from looking at your database. My problem stems from the fact that I planned out the data design for this experiment/project first. Then when I went to make the domain java objects, I realized that good design dictated that the objects hold other objects in a nested way. This is obviously different from the way that a database schema is - where all objects(tables) are flat and hold no other complex types within them. What is a good way to reconcile this? Would you: (A) Make the hibernate mapping files so that Picture.hbm.xml has a mapping to the POJO parent's idItem Field (if it's even possible) (B) Add an int attribute in the Picture class to refer to the idItem and set it at instantiation, thus simplifying the hbm.xml mapping file by having all table fields as local attributes in the class (C) Fix the database design because it is wrong, dork. I'd truly appreciate any feedback

    Read the article

  • How to access the backing field of an inherited class using fluent nhibernate

    - by Akk
    How do i set the Access Strategy in the mapping class to point to the inherited _photos field? public class Content { private IList<Photo> _photos; public Content() { _photos = new List<Photo>(); } public virtual IEnumerable<Photo> Photos { get { return _photos; } } public virtual void AddPhoto() {...} } public class Article : Content { public string Body {get; set;} } I am currently using thw following to try and locate the backing field but an exception is thrown as it cannot be found. public class ArticleMap : ClassMap<Article> { HasManyToMany(x => x.Photos) .Access.CamelCaseField(Prefix.Underscore) //_photos //... } i tried moving the backing field _photos directly into the class and the access works. So how can i access the backing field of an inherited class?

    Read the article

  • How can I tell Phusion Passenger which python to use?

    - by Mike
    I'm using Phusion Passenger with a ruby app and I'd also like to set it up to work with an django appengine app I'm working on. Googling for "passenger_wsgi.py" I was able to get the following very simple non-django app working on passenger: passenger_wsgi.py: def application(environ, start_response): response_headers = [('Content-type','text/plain')] start_response('200 OK', response_headers) return ['Hello World!\n'] However, if I add the line import django.core.handlers.wsgi into the mix, I get 'An error occurred importing your passenger_wsgi.py'. By printing out the sys.path I've discovered that at least part of the reason is because Passenger is using the wrong python installation on my machine. How can I configure Passenger (on apache) to use /opt/local/bin/python2.5 instead of the system default python?

    Read the article

  • JPA/Hibernate Parent/Child relationship

    - by NubieJ
    Hi I am quite new to JPA/Hibernate (Java in general) so my question is as follows (note, I have searched far and wide and have not come across an answer to this): I have two entities: Parent and Child (naming changed). Parent contains a list of Children and Children refers back to parent. e.g. @Entity public class Parent { @Id @Basic @GeneratedValue(strategy = GenerationType.IDENTITY) @Column(name = "PARENT_ID", insertable = false, updatable = false) private int id; /* ..... */ @OneToMany(cascade = { CascadeType.ALL }, fetch = FetchType.LAZY) @JoinColumn(name = "PARENT_ID", referencedColumnName = "PARENT_ID", nullable = true) private Set<child> children; /* ..... */ } @Entity public class Child { @Id @Basic @GeneratedValue(strategy = GenerationType.IDENTITY) @Column(name = "CHILD_ID", insertable = false, updatable = false) private int id; /* ..... */ @ManyToOne(cascade = { CascadeType.REFRESH }, fetch = FetchType.EAGER, optional = false) @JoinColumn(name = "PARENT_ID", referencedColumnName = "PARENT_ID") private Parent parent; /* ..... */ } I want to be able to do the following: Retrieve a Parent entity which would contain a list of all its children (List), however, when listing Parent (getting List, it of course should omit the children from the results, therefore setting FetchType.LAZY. Retrieve a Child entity which would contain an instance of the Parent entity. Using the code above (or similar) results in two exceptions: Retrieving Parent: A cycle is detected in the object graph. This will cause infinitely deep XML... Retrieving Child: org.hibernate.LazyInitializationException: failed to lazily initialize a collection of role: xxxxxxxxxxx, no session or session was closed When retrieving the Parent entity, I am using a named query (i.e. calling it specifically) @NamedQuery(name = "Parent.findByParentId", query = "SELECT p FROM Parent AS p LEFT JOIN FETCH p.children where p.id = :id") Code to get Parent (i.e. service layer): public Parent findByParentId(int parentId) { Query query = em.createNamedQuery("Parent.findByParentId"); query.setParameter("id", parentId); return (Parent) query.getSingleResult(); } Why am I getting a LazyInitializationException event though the List property on the Parent entity is set as Lazy (when retrieving the Child entity)?

    Read the article

  • Java JPA @OneToMany neededs to reciprocate @ManyToOne?

    - by bguiz
    Create Table A ( ID varchar(8), Primary Key(ID) ); Create Table B ( ID varchar(8), A_ID varchar(8), Primary Key(ID), Foreign Key(A_ID) References A(ID) ); Given that I have created two tables using the SQL statements above, and I want to create Entity classes for them, for the class B, I have these member attributes: @Id @Column(name = "ID", nullable = false, length = 8) private String id; @JoinColumn(name = "A_ID", referencedColumnName = "ID", nullable = false) @ManyToOne(optional = false) private A AId; In class A, do I need to reciprocate the many-to-one relationship? @Id @Column(name = "ID", nullable = false, length = 8) private String id; @OneToMany(cascade = CascadeType.ALL, mappedBy = "AId") private List<B> BList; //<-- Is this attribute necessary? Is it a necessary or a good idea to have a reciprocal @OneToMany for the @ManyToOne? If I make the design decision to leave out the @OneToMany annotated attribute now, will come back to bite me further down.

    Read the article

  • Hibernate without primary keys generated by db?

    - by Michael Jones
    I'm building a data warehouse and want to use InfiniDB as the storage engine. However, it doesn't allow primary keys or foreign key constraints (or any constraints for that matter). Hibernate complains "The database returned no natively generated identity value" when I perform an insert. Each table is relational, and contains a unique integer column that was previously used as the primary key - I want to keep that, but just not have the constraint in the db that the column is the primary key. I'm assuming the problem is that Hibernate expects the db to return a generated key. Is it possible to override this behaviour so I can set the primary key field's value myself and keep Hibernate happy? -- edit -- Two of the mappings are as follows: <?xml version="1.0"?> <!DOCTYPE hibernate-mapping PUBLIC "-//Hibernate/Hibernate Mapping DTD 3.0//EN" "http://hibernate.sourceforge.net/hibernate-mapping-3.0.dtd"> <!-- Generated Jun 1, 2010 2:49:51 PM by Hibernate Tools 3.2.1.GA --> <hibernate-mapping> <class name="com.example.project.Visitor" table="visitor" catalog="orwell"> <id name="id" type="java.lang.Long"> <column name="id" /> <generator class="identity" /> </id> <property name="firstSeen" type="timestamp"> <column name="first_seen" length="19" /> </property> <property name="lastSeen" type="timestamp"> <column name="last_seen" length="19" /> </property> <property name="sessionId" type="string"> <column name="session_id" length="26" unique="true" /> </property> <property name="userId" type="java.lang.Long"> <column name="user_id" /> </property> <set name="visits" inverse="true"> <key> <column name="visitor_id" /> </key> <one-to-many class="com.example.project.Visit" /> </set> </class> </hibernate-mapping> and: <?xml version="1.0"?> <!DOCTYPE hibernate-mapping PUBLIC "-//Hibernate/Hibernate Mapping DTD 3.0//EN" "http://hibernate.sourceforge.net/hibernate-mapping-3.0.dtd"> <!-- Generated Jun 1, 2010 2:49:51 PM by Hibernate Tools 3.2.1.GA --> <hibernate-mapping> <class name="com.example.project.Visit" table="visit" catalog="orwell"> <id name="id" type="java.lang.Long"> <column name="id" /> <generator class="identity" /> </id> <many-to-one name="visitor" class="com.example.project.Visitor" fetch="join" cascade="all"> <column name="visitor_id" /> </many-to-one> <property name="visitId" type="string"> <column name="visit_id" length="20" unique="true" /> </property> <property name="startTime" type="timestamp"> <column name="start_time" length="19" /> </property> <property name="endTime" type="timestamp"> <column name="end_time" length="19" /> </property> <property name="userAgent" type="string"> <column name="user_agent" length="65535" /> </property> <set name="pageViews" inverse="true"> <key> <column name="visit_id" /> </key> <one-to-many class="com.example.project.PageView" /> </set> </class> </hibernate-mapping>

    Read the article

  • How to map a property for HQL usage only (in Hibernate)?

    - by ManBugra
    i have a table like this one: id | name | score mapped to a POJO via XML with Hibernate. The score column i only need in oder by - clauses in HQL. The value for the score column is calculated by an algorithm and updated every 24 hours via SQL batch process (JDBC). So i dont wanna pollute my POJO with properties i dont need at runtime. For a single column that may be not a problem, but i have several different score columns. Is there a way to map a property for HQL use only? For example like this: <property name="score" type="double" ignore="true"/> so that i still can do this: from Pojo p order by p.score but my POJO implementation can look like this: public class Pojo { private long id; private String name; // ... } No Setter for score provided or property added to implementation. using the latest Hibernate version for Java.

    Read the article

  • How to pass json via a form element

    - by becomingGuru
    I have this swf (flash) file that provides the json that needs to be sent to the server. I wrote a very simple jQuery: function submitForm(swf_json) { $('#swfjson').val(swf_json); #swfjson is an input of type hidden $('#titleForm').submit(); } and the swf will call the submitForm above and I receive the request.POST in django as usual. But, django is interpreting the swf_json as a string "Object object" >>>type(request.POST['swfjson']) <type 'unicode'> Of course I can pass the json as a string to the view function. Doesn't seem good to me. Any other way of passing the json object to the django view?

    Read the article

  • JPA entitylisteners and @embeddable

    - by seanizer
    I have a class hierarchy of JPA entities that all inherit from a BaseEntity class: @MappedSuperclass @EntityListeners( { ValidatorListener.class }) public abstract class BaseEntity implements Serializable { // other stuff } I want all entities that implement a given interface to be validated automatically on persist and/or update. Here's what I've got. My ValidatorListener: public class ValidatorListener { private enum Type { PERSIST, UPDATE } @PrePersist public void checkPersist(final Object entity) { if (entity instanceof Validateable) { this.check((Validateable) entity, Type.PERSIST); } } @PreUpdate public void checkUpdate(final Object entity) { if (entity instanceof Validateable) { this.check((Validateable) entity, Type.UPDATE); } } private void check(final Validateable entity, final Type persist) { switch (persist) { case PERSIST: if (entity instanceof Persist) { ((Persist) entity).persist(); } if (entity instanceof PersistOrUpdate) { ((PersistOrUpdate) entity).persistOrUpdate(); } break; case UPDATE: if (entity instanceof Update) { ((Update) entity).update(); } if (entity instanceof PersistOrUpdate) { ((PersistOrUpdate) entity).persistOrUpdate(); } break; default: break; } } } and here's my Validateable interface that it checks against (the outer interface is just a marker, the inner contain the methods): public interface Validateable { interface Persist extends Validateable { void persist(); } interface PersistOrUpdate extends Validateable { void persistOrUpdate(); } interface Update extends Validateable { void update(); } } All of this works, however I would like to extend this behavior to Embeddable classes. I know two solutions: call the validation method of the embeddable object manually from the entity validation method: public void persistOrUpdate(){ // validate my own properties first // then manually validate the embeddable property: myEmbeddable.persistOrUpdate(); // this works but I'd like something that I don't have to call manually } use reflection, checking all properties to see if their type is of one of their interface types. This would work, but it's not pretty. Is there a more elegant solution?

    Read the article

  • Hibernate pluralization

    - by matiasf
    I have A MySQL database currently in production use for a CakePHP application A Java SE application accessing the same database via Hibernate, currently in development. I'm using the Netbeans "automigrate" feature to create the POJO classes and XML files (do I really need the XML files when using annotations?). As the schema is quite complex creating the tables manually is way too much work. Cake expects all DB tables to be pluralized (the Address class is automagically mapped to the addresses table). When running the Netbeans automigration it then does pluralization on the already pluralized table names (I'm getting Addresses.java and setAddresseses() methods). I know I'm asking for trouble running two very different data layers against the same database, but I'd like to know if it's possible to have Netbeans generating the POJO classes in singular form or if there is another (better) way to manage this.

    Read the article

  • Database Structure for CakePHP Models

    - by Michael T. Smith
    We're building a data tracking web app using CakePHP, and I'm having some issues getting the database structure right. We have Companies that haveMany Sites. Sites haveMany DataSamples. Tags haveAndBelongToMany Sites. That is all set up fine. The problem is "ranking" the sites within tags. We need to store it in the database as an archive. I created a Rank model that is setup like this: rank ( id (int), sample_id (int), tag_id (int), site_id (int), rank (int), total_rows) ) So, the question is, how do I create the associations for tag, site and sample to rank? I originally set them as haveMany. But the returned structures don't get me where I'd like to be. It looks like: [Site] => Array ( [Sample] = Array(), [Tag] = Array() ) When I'm really looking for: [Site] => Array ( [Tag] = Array ( [Sample] => Array ( [Rank] => Array ( ...data... ) ) ) ) I think that I may not be structuring the database properly; so if I need to update please let me know. Otherwise, how do I write a find query that gets me where I need to be? Thanks! Thoughts? Need more details? Just ask!

    Read the article

  • Getting my webapp to be database agnostic with Hibernate...

    - by JellyHead
    So the ultimate in scope-creep came in the other day: since we're using Hibernate, could we make our webapp run on Oracle as well as MySQL, interchangably? I thought this would be a simple case of changing hibernate.cfg.xml so that instead of explicity stating MySQL-specific options, it would reference a JNDI datasource, allowing the application to build regardless of the database we intend to deploy to. Then changing to a different database would simply mean changing the separate datasource configuration in JBoss, Jetty, WebLogic etc. Is this realistic? Well, I got as far as setting that up in Jetty, but What's tripping me up right now is error about the hibernate.dialect not having been set in hibernate.cfg.xml. But If I set the dialect there, then my app is still going to be built in either MySQL or Oracle flavours, which is not really what I want. Either I'm trying to attempt the impossible or I've missed something fundamentally obvious... anyone else had a similar problem (and subsequent solution/workaround)?

    Read the article

  • SQLAlchemy Custom Type Which Contains Multiple Columns

    - by Kekoa
    I would like to represent a datatype as a single column in my model, but really the data will be stored in multiple columns in the database. I cannot find any good resources on how to do this in SQLAlchemy. I would like my model to look like this(this is a simplified example using geometry instead of my real problem which is harder to explain): class 3DLine(DeclarativeBase): start_point = Column(my.custom.3DPoint) end_point = Column(my.custom.3DPoint) This way I could assign an object with the (x, y, z) components of the point at once without setting them individually. If I had to separate each component, this could get ugly, especially if each class has several of these composite objects. I would combine the values into one encoded field except that I need to query each value separately at times. I was able to find out how to make custom types using a single column in the documentation. But there's no indication that I can map a single type to multiple columns. I suppose I could accomplish this by using a separate table, and each column would be a foreign key, but in my case I don't think it makes sense to have a one to one mapping for each point to a separate table, and this still does not give the ability to set the related values all at once.

    Read the article

  • How to map combinations of things to a relational database?

    - by Space_C0wb0y
    I have a table whose records represent certain objects. For the sake of simplicity I am going to assume that the table only has one row, and that is the unique ObjectId. Now I need a way to store combinations of objects from that table. The combinations have to be unique, but can be of arbitrary length. For example, if I have the ObjectIds 1,2,3,4 I want to store the following combinations: {1,2}, {1,3,4}, {2,4}, {1,2,3,4} The ordering is not necessary. My current implementation is to have a table Combinations that maps ObjectIds to CombinationIds. So every combination receives a unique Id: ObjectId | CombinationId ------------------------ 1 | 1 2 | 1 1 | 2 3 | 2 4 | 2 This is the mapping for the first two combinations of the example above. The problem is, that the query for finding the CombinationId of a specific Combination seems to be very complex. The two main usage scenarios for this table will be to iterate over all combinations, and the retrieve a specific combination. The table will be created once and never be updated. I am using SQLite through JDBC. Is there any simpler way or a best practice to implement such a mapping?

    Read the article

  • JPA returning null for deleted items from a set

    - by Jon
    This may be related to my question from a few days ago, but I'm not even sure how to explain this part. (It's an entirely different parent-child relationship.) In my interface, I have a set of attributes (Attribute) and valid values (ValidValue) for each one in a one-to-many relationship. In the Spring MVC frontend, I have a page for an administrator to edit these values. Once it's submitted, if any of these fields (as <input> tags) are blank, I remove the ValidValue object like so: Set<ValidValue> existingValues = new HashSet<ValidValue>(attribute.getValidValues()); Set<ValidValue> finalValues = new HashSet<ValidValue>(); for(ValidValue validValue : attribute.getValidValues()) { if(!validValue.getValue().isEmpty()) { finalValues.add(validValue); } } existingValues.removeAll(finalValues); for(ValidValue removedValue : existingValues) { getApplicationDataService().removeValidValue(removedValue); } attribute.setValidValues(finalValues); getApplicationDataService().modifyAttribute(attribute); The problem is that while the database is updated appropriately, the next time I query for the Attribute objects, they're returned with an extra entry in their ValidValue set -- a null, and thus, the next time I iterate through the values to display, it shows an extra blank value in the middle. I've confirmed that this happens at the point of a merge or find, at the point of "Execute query ReadObjectQuery(entity.Attribute). Here's the code I'm using to modify the database (in the ApplicationDataService): public void modifyAttribute(Attribute attribute) { getJpaTemplate().merge(attribute); } public void removeValidValue(ValidValue removedValue) { ValidValue merged = getJpaTemplate().merge(removedValue); getJpaTemplate().remove(merged); } Here are the relevant parts of the entity classes: Entity @Table(name = "attribute") public class Attribute { @OneToMany(cascade = CascadeType.ALL, fetch = FetchType.LAZY, mappedBy = "attribute") private Set<ValidValue> validValues = new HashSet<ValidValue>(0); } @Entity @Table(name = "valid_value") public class ValidValue { @ManyToOne(fetch = FetchType.LAZY) @JoinColumn(name = "attr_id", nullable = false) private Attribute attribute; }

    Read the article

  • Hibernate database connection configuration

    - by Alvin
    We have 2 different server environments using the same Hibernate configuration. One server has JNDI support for datasource, but the other does not. Currently the Hibernate configuration is configured to use JNDI, which is causing problem on the server that does not support JNDI. I have also tried to put the direct JDBC configuration together with JNDI configuration into the configuration file, but it looks like hibernate always favors JNDI over direct JDBC configuration if both exist. My question is, will it be the same if both JNDI and connection_provider configuration both exists? Will Hibernate still use JNDI over connection_provider? Or is there any way to change the precedence of the database connection property? I do not have access to the server all the time, so I thought I do ask the question before my window of the sever time. Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • help with generating models from database for many to many in doctrine

    - by ajsie
    im using doctrine and i have set up some test tables to be generated into models: I want a many-to-many relationship models (3 tables converted into 3 models) (things are simplified to make the point clear) mysql tables: user: id INT // primary key name VARCHAR group: id INT // primary key name VARCHAR user_group: user_id INT // primary and foreign key to user.id group_id INT // primary and foreign key to group.id i thought that it would generate these models (from the documentation): // User.php class User extends Doctrine_Record { public function setTableDefinition() { $this->hasColumn('id'); $this->hasColumn('name); } public function setUp() { $this->hasMany('Group as Groups', array( 'refClass' => 'UserGroup', 'local' => 'user_id', 'foreign' => 'group_id' ) ); } } // Group.php class Group extends Doctrine_Record { public function setTableDefinition() { $this->hasColumn('id'); $this->hasColumn('name); } public function setUp() { $this->hasMany('User as Users', array( 'refClass' => 'UserGroup', 'local' => 'group_id', 'foreign' => 'user_id' ) ); } } // UserGroup.php class UserGroup extends Doctrine_Record { public function setTableDefinition() { $this->hasColumn('user_id') ); $this->hasColumn('group_id') ); } } but it generated this: // User.php abstract class BaseUser extends Doctrine_Record { public function setTableDefinition() { $this->hasColumn('id'); $this->hasColumn('name'); } public function setUp() { $this->hasMany('UserGroup', array( 'local' => 'id', 'foreign' => 'user_id')); } } // Group.php abstract class BaseGroup extends Doctrine_Record { public function setTableDefinition() { $this->hasColumn('id'); $this->hasColumn('name'); } public function setUp() { $this->hasMany('UserGroup', array( 'local' => 'id', 'foreign' => 'group_id')); } } // UserGroup.php abstract class BaseUserGroup extends Doctrine_Record { public function setTableDefinition() { $this->hasColumn('user_id'); $this->hasColumn('group_id'); } public function setUp() { $this->hasOne('User', array( 'local' => 'user_id', 'foreign' => 'id')); $this->hasOne('Group', array( 'local' => 'group_id', 'foreign' => 'id')); } } as you can see, there is no 'refClass' in the 'User' and 'Group' models pointing to the 'UserGroup'. the 'UserGroup' table in this case is just another table from Doctrine's perspective not a reference table. I've checked my table definitions in mysql. They are correct. user_group has 2 columns (primary keys and foreign keys), each one pointing to the primary key in either User or Group. But i want the standard many-to-many relationship models in Doctrine models. I'd appreciate some help. I have struggled to figure it out for a half day now. What is wrong? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Doctrine 1.2 Column Naming Conventions for Many To Many Relationships

    - by Alan Storm
    I'm working with an existing database schema, and trying to setup two Doctrine models with a Many to Many relationship, as described in this document When creating tables from scratch, I have no trouble getting this working. However, the existing join tables use a different naming convention that what's described in the Doctrine document. Specifically Table 1 -------------------------------------------------- table_1_id ....other columns.... Table 2 -------------------------------------------------- table_2_id ....other columns.... Join Table -------------------------------------------------- fktable1_id fktable_2_id Basically, the previous developers prefaced all forign keys with an fk. From the examples I've seen and some brief experimenting with code, it appears that Doctrine 1.2 requires that the join table use the same column names as the tables it's joining in Is my assumption correct? If so, has the situation changed in Doctrine 2? If the answers to either of the above are true, how do you configure the models so that all the columns "line up"

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128  | Next Page >