Hi,

I might be lacking in my knowledge as following might be expected behavior.
I want to persist an object of class Position which is has a member of class Balance as follows:

Class Position{
private balance = new Balance();
}

where
Class Balance{
private Map money = new HashMap();
}

Now my mapping file for above is as follows:



Now the problem is, above mapping results in 3 tables. but my second table tble_balance is having just one column balance_id.
Is it possible to avoid this table(without changing the java object structure) as I can have balance_id column in tbl_money and work with just 2 tables?

I know if money Map is direct member of Position(as follows), it will result in 2 tables but I can't change java object.
Class Position{
private Map money = new HashMap();
}


Kindly share your information.

Thanks & Regards.

You may map the "balance" as a component. Fields inside the component will be mapped to an object of the wanted class

Hi,

Thanks for your reply. Yes it can be done by using component is this case.
But its not possible to avoid the same problem in case of more complicated mappings. like for eg.

Class Account{
private Map<String, Payment> payemnts = new Map<String, Payment>
}

Class Payment{
private Money installments;
}

Class Money{
private int[] amounts;
}

So mapping for above would be..




In this case, again its difficult to avoid table table_money with single column m_id.
Any suggestions??


Thanks again.