Yes the issue was fixed in the 20th Dec nightly build.
--Gordon
-----Original Message-----
From: aung zay [mailto:aungzay0_at_gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 4:37 AM
To: persistence_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
Subject: Re: help me with EJB3!
hi,
May i know if glassfish had issue with one to one mapping b4 20th dec nightly build?
If its had one, it is already fixed on latest build.
Thanks
-AZ-
On 12/20/05, Gordon Yorke <gordon.yorke_at_oracle.com> wrote:
I took a quick look, there doesn't appear to be anything wrong with the classes. There have been some bugs with the compound primary key code that has been fixed recently. I recommend getting the latest code from the entity-perstence module.
--Gordon
-----Original Message-----
From: Markus Fuchs [mailto:Markus.Fuchs_at_Sun.COM]
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 3:55 PM
To: aung zay
Cc: Gordon Yorke
Subject: Re: help me with EJB3!
Hi AZ,
I can't see anything wrong w/ your classes. Why did you comment out the
get/setPK in CustomerComposite? Did this affect the error?
Gordon,
Please have a look at the attached jar. The error message is:
Exception [TOPLINK-48] (Oracle TopLink Essentials - 10g release 4
(10.1.4.0.0) (Build 051205Dev)):
oracle.toplink.essentials.exceptions.DescriptorException
Exception Description: Multiple writable mappings exist for the field
[ORDERCOMPOSITE.CUSTOMER_ID]. Only one may be defined as writable, all
others must be specified read-only.
Mapping: oracle.toplink.essentials.mappings.OneToOneMapping[customer]
Descriptor: RelationalDescriptor( com.jumino.entity.OrderComposite -->
[DatabaseTable(ORDERCOMPOSITE)])
Exception [TOPLINK-48] (Oracle TopLink Essentials - 10g release 4
(10.1.4.0.0) (Build 051205Dev)):
oracle.toplink.essentials.exceptions.DescriptorException
Exception Description: Multiple writable mappings exist for the field
[ORDERCOMPOSITE.CUSTOMER_NAME]. Only one may be defined as writable,
all others must be specified read-only.
Please also note that Aung seems to be using an older TopLink Essentials
version.
Thanks!
-- markus.
> Hi Markus,
> Thanks for the comments.sorry about the attachment.
> Now I send again.
> I m afraid that you wanna see my code.
> Thanks
> -AZ-
>
> Markus Fuchs wrote:
>
>> Hi AZ,
>>
>> Please find my comments in line!
>>
>> aung zay wrote:
>>
>>> hi Markus Fuchs,
>>>
>>> I m not sure my code is correct or not. All i have are EJB-3
>>> draft docs.
>>> Let me know if there any good sample or link to learn EJB3
>>> I attached my code as jar so that you can check.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The email I got did not have an attachment...
>>
>>> Thanks
>>> -AZ-
>>>
>>> Markus Fuchs wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi AZ,
>>>>
>>>> the two relationships below don't seem inverse to each other. Are
>>>> they the two sides of the same relationship?
>>>>
>>
>> Please disregard above sentence. I was first confused about the
>> relationship when I started composing my reply and then forgot to
>> remove it before I send the email. The relationship below looks
>> perfectly fine to me. It is that a CustomerComposite can have a
>> Collection of OrderComposite, right?
>>
>>>> aung zay wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Mitesh Meswani,
>>>>> Oops, Sorry, wrong log msg. The even though the code is the
>>>>> samilar.
>>>>> By the way, it worked on M-M case. why not on 1-M/M-1?
>>>>>
>>>>> CustomerComposite
>>>>> ---------------------
>>>>> id - PK
>>>>> name -PK
>>>>>
>>>>> @ManyToOne( cascade= { CascadeType.PERSIST, CascadeType.MERGE}
>>>>> ) @JoinColumns({
>>>>> @JoinColumn(name = "CUSTOMER_ID" ,referencedColumnName="id"),
>>>>> @JoinColumn(name = "CUSTOMER_NAME",referencedColumnName="name")
>>>>> }) public CustomerComposite getCustomer()
>>>>> { return customer;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>> This is defined in OrderComposite, correct?
>>>>
>>>>> OrderComposite
>>>>> -----------------
>>>>> id -PK
>>>>>
>>>>> @OneToMany( cascade=CascadeType.ALL ,fetch = FetchType.EAGER,
>>>>> mappedBy="customer") public Collection<OrderComposite>
>>>>> getOrders() {
>>>>> return orders;
>>>>> }
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is defined in CustomerComposite, correct?
>>>>
>>>> The mapping looks correct to me. Do you have any other relationship
>>>> in OrderComposite mapped to ORDERCOMPOSITE.CUSTOMER_ID /
>>>> ORDERCOMPOSITE.CUSTOMER_NAME?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> This was my comment on the exception you saw:
>>
>> [...
>> Exception Description: Multiple writable mappings exist for the field
>> [ORDERCOMPOSITE.CUSTOMER_ID]. Only one may be defined as writable,
>> all others must be specified read-only.
>> ...]
>>
>> Please check, if there is another relationship mapped to the foreign
>> key columns ORDERCOMPOSITE.CUSTOMER_ID or
>> ORDERCOMPOSITE.CUSTOMER_NAME. Are these columns mapped in any other way?
>>
>>>>
>>>> -- markus.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>> -AZ-
>>>>>
>>>>> Mitesh Meswani wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi AZ,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The error you are getting is coming from
>>>>>> com.jumino.entity.OrderComposite -->
>>>>>> [DatabaseTable(ORDERCOMPOSITE)]. I guess it has nothing to do
>>>>>> with Employee or PhoneNumber objects.
>>>>>> Please see inline....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> aung zay wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> hi,
>>>>>>> I got exception at the following situation. I also want to
>>>>>>> know if my code is correct or not.
>>>>>>> Employee
>>>>>>> ----------
>>>>>>> id - PK
>>>>>>> branch_id -PK
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> @OneToMany( cascade= CascadeType.ALL ,fetch = FetchType.EAGER,
>>>>>>> mappedBy="employee") public Collection<PhoneNumber>
>>>>>>> getPhoneNumbers() {
>>>>>>> return phoneNumbers;
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> PhoneNumber
>>>>>>> --------------
>>>>>>> number - PK
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> @ManyToOne( cascade= {CascadeType.PERSIST,
>>>>>>> CascadeType.MERGE} ) @JoinColumns({
>>>>>>> @JoinColumn(name = "employee_id" ,referencedColumnName="id"),
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> //I think you want to refer to "branch_id" from Employee and
>>>>>> not "name" as below
>>>>>>
>>
>> Mitesh is right. referencedColumnName should be "branch_id",as
>> Employee's PK is (id, branch_id) and not (id, name).
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> -- markus.
>>
>>>>>>> @JoinColumn(name =
>>>>>>> "employee_branch_id",referencedColumnName="name")
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> }) public Employee getEmployee() {
>>>>>>> return employee;
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And the exceptions were
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Exception [TOPLINK-48] (Oracle TopLink Essentials - 10g release
>>>>>>> 4 (10.1.4.0.0) (Build 051205Dev)):
>>>>>>> oracle.toplink.essentials.exceptions.DescriptorException
>>>>>>> Exception Description: Multiple writable mappings exist for the
>>>>>>> field [ORDERCOMPOSITE.CUSTOMER_ID]. Only one may be defined as
>>>>>>> writable, all others must be specified read-only.
>>>>>>> Mapping:
>>>>>>> oracle.toplink.essentials.mappings.OneToOneMapping[customer]
>>>>>>> Descriptor:
>>>>>>> RelationalDescriptor(com.jumino.entity.OrderComposite -->
>>>>>>> [DatabaseTable(ORDERCOMPOSITE)])
>>>>>>> Exception [TOPLINK-48] (Oracle TopLink Essentials - 10g release
>>>>>>> 4 (10.1.4.0.0) (Build 051205Dev)):
>>>>>>> oracle.toplink.essentials.exceptions.DescriptorException
>>>>>>> Exception Description: Multiple writable mappings exist for the
>>>>>>> field [ORDERCOMPOSITE.CUSTOMER_NAME]. Only one may be defined
>>>>>>> as writable, all others must be specified read-only.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please check the mapping as suggested by error message above
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Mitesh
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mapping:
>>>>>>> oracle.toplink.essentials.mappings.OneToOneMapping [customer]
>>>>>>> Descriptor:
>>>>>>> RelationalDescriptor(com.jumino.entity.OrderComposite -->
>>>>>>> [DatabaseTable(ORDERCOMPOSITE)])
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>> -AZ-
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Gordon Yorke wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hello Sailaja,
>>>>>>>> The solution to this issue is currently in progress. In
>>>>>>>> the meantime the error you are seeing should only occur when
>>>>>>>> there is a composite PK on both sides of the relationship.
>>>>>>>> --Gordon
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>> From: Sailaja Rao [mailto: Sailaja.Rao_at_Sun.COM]
>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 2:39 PM
>>>>>>>> To: persistence_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: help me with EJB3!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://glassfish.dev.java.net/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=53
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have a test with composite Primary keys in relationship
>>>>>>>> (1-1, 1-M,
>>>>>>>> M-1 and M-M) and it fails with the following exception
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thread-4848;|[TopLink Severe]: 2005.09.21
>>>>>>>> 01:11:55.406--ServerSession(3656671)--Thread(Thread[SelectorThread-4848,5,main])--Local
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Exception Stack:
>>>>>>>> Exception [TOPLINK-0] (Oracle TopLink - 10g release 2 (10.1.3.0.0)
>>>>>>>> (Build 050902Dev)): oracle.toplink.exceptions.IntegrityException
>>>>>>>> Descriptor Exceptions:
>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> Runtime Exceptions:
>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> java.util.NoSuchElementException: Hashtable Enumerator
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And also, I see the following exception in the same log
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> java.util.NoSuchElementException: Hashtable Enumerator
>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>> java.util.Hashtable$Enumerator.nextElement (Hashtable.java:1010)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> Sailaja
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Gordon Yorke wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The advanced model in the entity-persistence-tests GlassFish
>>>>>>>>> module contains a PhoneNumber class that uses a composite
>>>>>>>>> PrimaryKey. The package is
>>>>>>>>> oracle.toplink.essentials.testing.models.advanced;
>>>>>>>>> If you do not have access to the cvs modules send me an email
>>>>>>>>> directly and I will jar the source and send it to you.
>>>>>>>>> --Gordon
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>> From: aung zay [mailto:aungzay0_at_gmail.com]
>>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 7:42 AM
>>>>>>>>> To: persistence_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
>>>>>>>>> Subject: help me with EJB3!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>> Any of you having entity-persistence example of
>>>>>>>>> one-to-many/many-to-one with composite key ?
>>>>>>>>> Thanks in advance.
>>>>>>>>> -AZ-
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>