Hello,

I have a problem with identifier property. I have a table which does not have (does not need to have) a primary key. In Hibernate reference document for version 2.1.2 is says that identifier property is optional, but when I try not to put the corresponding XML tag, and run the application it doesn't work (throws an exception who says that id tag must pe present).

How can I map a class on a table which does not have a primary key?

Thanks.

maybe mapping all his properties as part of a composite id

No, what the documentation says is that having the id attribute defined on the java bean itself is optional. Of course you have to define some type of id in the mapping. How else is Hibernate supposed to locate specific rows?

Perhaps, I have misinterpreted the following incorrectly:

http://www.hibernate.org/hib_docs/refer ... a-examples
5.1.4 ID
...
"If the name attribute is missing, it is assumed that the class has no identifier property. "


Given the above quote and the DTD's requirements,
http://hibernate.sourceforge.net/hibern ... on-2.0.dtd,
it suggests to me that a table with no primary key constraints would be mapped with something like:

<id type="long"><generator class="identity"/></id>


However, both session.iterate() and session.find() are returning containers with all null objects. Albiet, the containers have the correct number of items, the items are null.

You can not map a table without primary keys. What you can do is map classes without primary key properties, the table however must still have a primary key.

This would be a major limitation for adopting Hibernate for my current project. It is not my database to redesign.

If you don't have primary keys, your database is doomed anyway and you are working with questionable results all the time.

Once again, this database is not mine.

However, I might consider omitting a primary key on the following table(s):
1) AuditLog(
TimeStamp timestamp,
UserName varchar(32),
AttemptedAccess varchar(8)
ResourceName varchar(256),
WasDenied boolean,
Message varchar(512)
)

Why don't you just declare for example the timestamp (or timestamp and username) as primary key, that should be good enough in that case. You have to use "assigned" in that case however. Anyways I'd strongly recommend not using such constructs and really go for reworking the database if anyhow possible.