db-jdo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael Watzek <mwa.t...@spree.de>
Subject Re: Dependent and element-dependent
Date Fri, 27 Jan 2006 15:59:12 GMT
Hi Jörg,

I'm not sure, if the bug is in the area of dependent objects.

The failing configuration is inheritance1 for datastoreidentity. This 
configuration executes the completeness test. This test case is 
successfully executed by other configuration, e.g. inheritance1 for 
applicationidentity, inheritance4 for both identity types, and all 
relationship configurations (companyXXX.conf) for both identity types.

I rather think that the problem may be the order of DELETE statements in 
the Person hierarchy.

Regards,
Michael
> Please see my comments below on how JPOX will treat dependent vs. 
> element-dependent on collection fields. Please reply if you have 
> objections!
> 
> Craig L Russell schrieb:
> 
>> Hi Jörg,
>>
>> On Nov 3, 2005, at 1:49 AM, Jörg von Frantzius wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> the specification currently is somewhat confusing where it defines 
>>> the meta-data attributes "dependent" and "element-dependent". 
>>> Concerning "dependent" it says:
>>>
>>>    "The dependent attribute indicates that the field contains a
>>>    reference that is to be deleted
>>
>>
>> The reference is the object that is referenced by the field. I'll try 
>> to clarify this in the spec.
>>
>>>    from the datastore if the referring instance in which the field is
>>>    declared is deleted, or if the
>>>    referring field is nullified."
>>>
>>> Now does that mean that really the *reference* is to be deleted 
>>> (which seems kinda natural to me), or rather the object being 
>>> referred to? Probably the latter?
>>
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>>
>>> For collection fields, there is the additional "dependent-element" 
>>> attribute of the "collection" tag. Wouldn't it be enough to have 
>>> "dependent" on the field level?
>>
>>
>> We try to make the field metadata refer to behavior of the field 
>> itself, and put the behavior of multi-valued field types (array, 
>> collection, map) in separate metadata to better match the semantics of 
>> Collection versus Element.
>>
>> We could make it illegal to specify dependent on field types of array, 
>> collection, and map...
>>
>>> Or what does it mean if the user specifies 'dependent="false"' with 
>>> nested 'element-dependent="true"', or vice-versa?
>>
>>
>> See above.
> 
> JPOX will ignore any "dependent" attribute setting on Collection fields, 
> so only the "element-dependent" attribute will be of meaning for 
> Collection fields.
> 
>>
>> Experts, any opinion on this subject?
>>
>> Craig
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for any explanations,
>>> Jörg
>>>
>>> --__________________________________________________________
>>> Dipl.-Inf. Jörg von Frantzius  |            artnology GmbH
>>>                               |                Milastr. 4
>>> Tel +49 (0)30 4435 099 26      |              10437 Berlin
>>> Fax +49 (0)30 4435 099 99      |  http://www.artnology.com
>>> _______________________________|__________________________
>>>
>>
>> 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!
>>
>>
> 
> 


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Watzek                  Tech@Spree Engineering GmbH
mailto:mwa.tech@spree.de        Buelowstr. 66
Tel.:  ++49/30/235 520 36       10783 Berlin - Germany
Fax.:  ++49/30/217 520 12       http://www.spree.de/
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Mime
View raw message