Container Managed Unidirectional Relationships

[Joe McIntyre]

HF EJB page 432:
I thought question 4 was a trick question. I thought you shouldn't check box B, because I figured Bar didn't have a reference to Foo (due to the unidirectional relationship). Of course, if Bar DID have a reference to Foo, then it's true the method would have returned null.
It seems page 391 supports this view.
Am I wrong?

[Joe McIntyre]

OK, here's a different question that's not unidirectional, but I'll put it here.
HF EJB page 433, problem 9:
The little note says Set, Collection, or local interface type. But I thought if it was the local interface type, you wouldn't have a <cmr-field-type> element. Bottom of page 395 seems to support this.

[Vishwa Kumba]

Wally,
It would be really nice if you can put your question fully here, if it is not too much of an effort. Not everybody in this forum would have bought HF EJB, and secondly even if some of them have, not all of them would have it in front of their desk all the time.
Thanks,

[Joe McIntyre]

Vish - will do. But on these two particular questions I can't tell if I'm misunderstanding something, or if the book is wrong.