composite primary key with identity column and foreign key

jgodea · **Joined:** Thu Jun 15, 2006 2:15 pm **Posts:** 15

I need to map a table (AddressTable below) that uses an identity column and an integer column as the composit primary key. The integer column is a foreign key. Is there an example of how to map this?

ClientTable
CLIENT_KEY INTEGER <PK> IDENTITY

AddressTable
CLIENT_KEY INTEGER <PK FK> NOT NULL
ADDRESS_KEY INTEGER <PK> IDENTITY

This is what the tool generated but it doesn't work


<composite-id name="id" class="com.fbfs.claims.model.hibernate.LcltaddrId">
<key-property name="IClientKey" type="int">
<column name="I_CLIENT_KEY" />
</key-property>
<key-property name="IAddressKey" type="int">
<column name="I_ADDRESS_KEY" />
</key-property>
</composite-id>

tmvander · **Joined:** Wed May 31, 2006 11:51 am **Posts:** 3

We are doing something similar in our system. This is one of the few things I have working, but just to warn you it seems to break merge(). What you're doing is a bit different because you're using IDENTITY on your second column. I'm curious why this needs to be a composite id if you're using an IDENTITY? The IDENTITY should be the primary key. Then use a foreign key relationship.

Code:

Client:
      <one-to-one name="mailingAddress" class="Address" cascade="all" constrained="false" lazy="false" outer-join="false">
         <formula>client_id</formula>
         <formula>2</formula>
      </one-to-one>
Address:
      <composite-id unsaved-value="undefined">
         <key-many-to-one name="client" 
               column="client_id"/>
         <key-property name="addressType" 
               column="address_type_c"/>
      </composite-id>

_______
Todd V

kochcp · **Posted:** Thu Jun 15, 2006 3:39 pm

Code:

<key-many-to-one
                    
           name="nameOfWhatever"
           class="package.name.NameOfWhatever" 
           column="column"  
      
    >
    </key-many-to-one>

jgodea · **Joined:** Thu Jun 15, 2006 2:15 pm **Posts:** 15

[quote="tmvander"]We are doing something similar in our system. This is one of the few things I have working, but just to warn you it seems to break merge(). What you're doing is a bit different because you're using IDENTITY on your second column. I'm curious why this needs to be a composite id if you're using an IDENTITY? The IDENTITY should be the primary key. Then use a foreign key relationship.

Thanks for the response. Unfortunately I can't change the table design.
DBA (don't bother asking).

jgodea · **Joined:** Thu Jun 15, 2006 2:15 pm **Posts:** 15

The DBA agreed to change the table. I don't think there is a way to map this, and there doesn't need to be. Thanks for your help.