db-jdo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michelle Caisse <Michelle.Cai...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: Proposed solution for JDO-69
Date Tue, 12 Jul 2005 23:05:44 GMT
Okay, thanks.  I will fix this.

-- Michelle

Craig Russell wrote:

> Hi Michelle,
>
> The addrid field is a persistent field in the application domain, and 
> should be mapped in both application and datastore identity cases. I 
> think the easiest way to do it is to add field mapping and column 
> ADDRID to the schema and mapping files. Even though addrid is not the 
> identity field, it's still a persistent field in the model and needs 
> to be mapped.
>
> I also notice that in the package.jdo for the company model, Address 
> is defined thus:
>
>         <class name="Address" requires-extent="false">
>             <field name="addrid" persistence-modifier="none"/>
>         </class>
>
> This isn't right, as the addrid field is an application field that 
> needs to be set to the application value in order for comparisons to 
> succeed. 
>
> Craig
>
> On Jul 12, 2005, at 2:47 PM, Michelle Caisse wrote:
>
>> The proposed solution fixes most of the 17 errors caused by this 
>> issue under application identity.  Under datastore identity, the 
>> affected tests produce a different error --  the implementation 
>> expects an identity field for the embedded Address class (JDO-83).
>>
>>
>>
>
> Craig Russell
>
> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
>
> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
>
> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>
>


Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message