Re: [eclipselink-users] SecondaryTable question

[Tom Ware <tom.ware@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Is there any particular reason this has to be a secondary table?  Could this 
instead be mapped with some other mapping like a 1-1 - you could even provide 
methods on the class to make the values in the 1-1 accessible as if they were 
mapped on the same class.

-Tom

Sri Sankaran wrote:
> Eclipselink version: 2.0.0
>  
> Is it possible to use a _secondary table_ 
> <http://www.eclipse.org/eclipselink/api/2.0/javax/persistence/SecondaryTable.html> 
> in such a way that inserts/updates happen only to the /primary /table?
>  
> You are probably wondering “Why on earth would you want that behavior”.  
> Here’s why.  We are using the @SecondaryTable annotation to point to a 
> view which contains read-only data.
>  
> /@Table(//name=”REGISTRATIONS”)/
> /@SecondaryTable(name=”REGISTRATION_STATUS_FLAGS_V)/
> *p**ublic* *class* Registration {
>   ...
>   /@Column(name=”EXPIRATION_STATUS” /
> /          table=”REGISTRATION_STATUS_FLAGS_V”/
> /          insertable=”false”/
> /          updatable=”false”)/
>   private String expirationStatus;
> }
>  
> The current setup is resulting in database errors because an insert to 
> the primary table results in an attempted insert to the secondary table 
> as well.
>  
> Sri
>  
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> eclipselink-users mailing list
> eclipselink-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipselink-users