Hi,

I've got a simple relationship between a user and a place - each user can have many places and each place belongs to only one user. I practically copied the example from hib-annot docs. However as I run the method below only a user is saved in the db i.e. without their places though the user has a reference to not empty places Set.


// this method is invoked in a Spring managed transaction so the session is opened and closed outside this method
public void test() {
Session currentSession = sessionFactory.getCurrentSession();
User user = new User("test");
Place place = new Place();
user.getPlaces().add(place);
currentSession.save(user);
}

The User and Place classes are very simple(I omit the methods not related to the issue):

@Entity()
@Table(name = "user")
public class User {
private Long id;
private Set<Place> places = new HashSet<Place>();

@OneToMany
public Set<Place> getPlaces() {
return places;
}

@Id @GeneratedValue(strategy=GenerationType.AUTO)
public Long getId() {
return id;
}

@Entity
@Table(name = "place")
public class Place {
private Long id;
private User user;

@Id @GeneratedValue(strategy=GenerationType.AUTO)
public Long getId() {
return id;
}

@ManyToOne
public User getUser() {
return user;
}

Could you point what is missing?

Thanks,

Maciek

In that case i would go for a foreign_key to the user in each place





Notice that places without a user set (thus null) will result in an exception (if you remove the nullable=false the place will be inserted, but the foreign-key to user will be NULL)

The other way round does work to:



Well, this is what i concluded in my experiments with onetomany.