db-jdo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jörg von Frantzius <joerg.von.frantz...@artnology.com>
Subject Re: Minutes: JDO TCK Conference Call Friday, July 14 9 am PST
Date Mon, 17 Jul 2006 16:26:08 GMT
Hello Craig,

if I understand things right, you changed your mind and now you don't 
see a any problem with JPOX's automatic nulling out of FKs? If that's 
the case, then I wonder why a user would want to have FK constraints in 
his schema at all? They wouldn't be of much use then.

I may also add that, as far as I know, JPOX nulls out only for one-one 
bidirectional, not for one-many, so there would be some inconsistency of 
behaviour here.


Craig L Russell schrieb:
> 2. Deletion of objects when foreign-key is present (JDO-392) (any and 
> all) It seems that there are two different issues: managing the memory 
> model and managing the database. Craig opines that the general case of 
> consistency is already covered in the chapter on mapping, requiring 
> that the object model be consistent after a flush. Object model 
> consistency would disallow a reference to a deleted object, so the 
> natural behavior would be to nullify the reference to the deleted 
> object. For to-many relationships mapped to a foreign key on the other 
> side, the consistency rule would delete the reference from the 
> collection on the one- side of the relationship. So it seems that the 
> JPOX behavior as originally reported is consistent and we might simply 
> document it in the specification.
Why does object model consistency disallow a reference to a deleted object?

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