Mailing-List: contact jdo-dev-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: jdo-dev@db.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (hermes.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <1115158169.4277f6992c117@webmail.jpox.org>
Date: Tue,  3 May 2005 15:09:29 -0700
From: erik@jpox.org
To: jdo-dev@db.apache.org
References: <42727265.7070100@sun.com> <42753BBE.6060000@spree.de>
 <42768B2B.70600@sun.com> <4276A522.5030104@spree.de>
 <4276BA65.5000700@sun.com> <4277DC9F.9000802@spree.de>
In-Reply-To: <4277DC9F.9000802@spree.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 3.2.3
Subject: Re: pmf not closed
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Quoting Michael Bouschen <mbo.tech@spree.de>:

> Hi Michelle,
>
> thanks for testing.
>
> > Hi, Michael,
> >
> > The tests still don't pass because you are attempting to delete the
> > PCPoints before the PCRects.  Even though it is one transaction, you
> > have to change the order as I did below.
>
> I agree we need to change the order and delete PCRect instances first as
> you suggest. The cleanup code should succeed in any case. But maybe this
> scenario is an interesting test for the TCK delete test. I think the JDO
> implementation should reorder the SQL DELETE statements according to the
> foreign keys in the database such that the transaction succeeds no
> matter which instances the user deleted first in the JDO transaction.
>

If the fields lowerRight and upperLeft ate set as dependent in the metadata,
this will probably solve the issue.

Regards,

Erik Bengtson