null value seems to be fine, I'll commit and try things out on the zone

On 8/1/07, Emmanuel Venisse <emmanuel@venisse.net> wrote:
>
> I think null value will be enough. I think we'll need to test the null
> value in the UI but it isn't a problem.
>
> Emmanuel
>
> Brett Porter a écrit :
> > Hi,
> >
> > I've narrowed down the problem in upgrading from alpha-2 to beta-1 to
> > the following model change:
> >
> >         <field>
> >           <name>buildDefinition</name>
> >           <version>1.1.0+</version>
> >           <association xml.reference="true" stash.part="true"
> > jpox.dependent="false">
> >             <type>BuildDefinition</type>
> >           </association>
> >         </field>
> >
> >
> > The problem here is that Continuum has no idea how to pre-populate the
> > value for this. Should we/can we simply add a default value of null for
> > this? Or will the data management app need some smarts to set it to the
> > default build definition where it doesn't exist?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Brett
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>


-- 
jesse mcconnell
jesse.mcconnell@gmail.com