6 Replies Latest reply on Sep 5, 2002 1:23 PM by jbnewb

    table-name ignored

    jbnewb

      Hi,
      I am new to JBoss - using 3.0 - Somehow the table-name tag is getting ignored and the persistence engine seems to look for a table by the name of the <ejb-name> tag.

      Also, even when I change the defaults in my jbosscmp-jdbc to use Oracle 9i ( I have configured oracle-service.xml ) - it seems to pick up stuff from standardjaws.xml - Why is that? Have i missed some configuration

      ne help is greatly appreciated

        • 1. Re: table-name ignored
          dsundstrom

          Are you using JAWS of JBossCMP? Did you declare the DOCTYPE in your ejb-jar.xml file?

          • 2. Re: table-name ignored
            jbnewb

            I am using the <!DOCTYPE ejb-jar PUBLIC "-//Sun Microsystems, Inc.//DTD Enterprise JavaBeans 2.0//EN" "http://java.sun.com/dtd/ejb-jar_2_0.dtd"> dtd.

            It does pick up the settings from jbosscmp-jdbc.xml. It is therefore confusing. The datasource settings affected by the standardjaws.xml i.e.


            Also - what about the table name being ignored?

            thanks

            • 3. Re: table-name ignored
              dsundstrom

              JBossCMP does NOT use any jaws files. Jaws is the old persistence engine and is only is in JBoss 3.x for backwards compatiblity. It will be removed in JBoss 4.0.

              Are you putting you setting in jaws.xml or jbosscmp-jdbc.xml?

              • 4. Re: table-name ignored
                jbnewb

                in jbosscmp-jdbc.xml

                • 5. Re: table-name ignored
                  dsundstrom

                  There are two reported bugs on this, but I haven't looked at them yet, as table name mapping works perfectly fine for me in all of my test cases. I'll look at them when the higher priority bugs are closed.

                  Are you declaring the JBossCMP doctype in the jbosscmp-jdbc.xml file?

                  • 6. Re: table-name ignored
                    jbnewb

                    Apologize for not replying earlier - was ill. Yes the doctype declaration exists in the file -

                    What are the two bugs, if I may ask?

                    thanks