I had the problem that two entities A and B had a many-to-many relation but deleting an object a resulted in a constraint violation because the object was used by an object b.
To my surprise fiddling with the inverse="true", inverse="false" and cascade="none" fixed the problem.
My understanding is that deleting an object always deletes the row from the join table. (cascade="none"). Setting cascade to "delete" will also force the deletion of the object(s) on the other side.
However why inverse="true" and "false" make a difference I do not understand. You would assume that specifying one would be enough and imply the other. Apparently there is more to it than I understand. Needs a follow up...
So I'm not the first one to run into this. Found this blog "Hibernates bizarre interpretation of inverse". He basically says that inverse tells Hibernate which side of the relation to ignore. Although this does make complete sense to me, it fits my problem.
Hmmmm
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
inverse means which side is the owner. inverse ="true" --> i am the owner , default hibernate intialize inverse to true.
Post a Comment