db-jdo-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From LFS <lfs83mail-apache...@yahoo.com.br>
Subject Re: Persisting object and foreign keys
Date Tue, 30 Jun 2009 11:23:56 GMT

I have thought of this, but it sounded like an awful memory waste... it can rise to very high
memory consumption, just to keep this data around, like in the user session.
I also thought of using getObjectById to get the city object before persisting the address,
but that is another query hitting the DB (cache may help, but does not solve it).

Neither of these solutions sound nice... this is some pretty trivial operation, and there
should be a better solution for it. How can I do it? Could database identity help it somehow?

Thanks again!

--- Em seg, 29/6/09, Craig L Russell <Craig.Russell@Sun.COM> escreveu:

De: Craig L Russell <Craig.Russell@Sun.COM>
Assunto: Re: Persisting object and foreign keys
Para: jdo-user@db.apache.org
Data: Segunda-feira, 29 de Junho de 2009, 18:43


If the combo box is populated from the database, perhaps you could keep a detached City object
around (as a value of a Map corresponding to the name of the city as the key) and when the
new Address instance is created, use the detached City instance as the value of the City field
in the new Address instance. When you do makePersistent on the Address, the detached City
instance will be reconnected to the database.


On Jun 29, 2009, at 12:54 PM, LFS wrote:

> Hi
> This is my situation: I have an Address object that I
> persist/retrieve from the DB. It contains a City object, reperesenting
> the city on which that address is. City contains State, and State
> contains Country object (a long N-1 chain).
> When I'm creating a new
> address from user input, the user selected its city from a combo box
> which I populated from DB, then I'll have the city's ID.
> When I try
> to persist the new address, the most I can do is put a City object on
> it, containing only the city ID. The problem is that persisting this
> will erase the City record for that ID on the DB, because other fields
> like Name and State will be null. I want simply to set the foreign id
> on the Address object, nothing else.
> I believe there is some
> good solution for this... my intention is not updating the City object,
> and retrieving it to put it back on the address object before being
> persisted sounds very strange and a performance nightmare.
> What's the proper way to do this?
> Thanks!
> Note: I'm using application identity and DataNucleus JDO.
>      ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Veja quais são os assuntos do momento no Yahoo! +Buscados
> http://br.maisbuscados.yahoo.com

Craig L Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!

Veja quais são os assuntos do momento no Yahoo! +Buscados
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message