Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-db-ojb-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 8385 invoked from network); 12 Mar 2004 16:47:59 -0000 Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (208.185.179.12) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 12 Mar 2004 16:47:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 17355 invoked by uid 500); 12 Mar 2004 16:47:52 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-db-ojb-dev-archive@db.apache.org Received: (qmail 17330 invoked by uid 500); 12 Mar 2004 16:47:52 -0000 Mailing-List: contact ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "OJB Developers List" Reply-To: "OJB Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list ojb-dev@db.apache.org Received: (qmail 17315 invoked from network); 12 Mar 2004 16:47:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.gmx.net) (213.165.64.20) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 12 Mar 2004 16:47:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 30521 invoked by uid 65534); 12 Mar 2004 16:47:53 -0000 Received: from adsl-62-167-178-36.adslplus.ch (EHLO gmx.ch) (62.167.178.36) by mail.gmx.net (mp007) with SMTP; 12 Mar 2004 17:47:53 +0100 X-Authenticated: #15507884 Message-ID: <4051E99A.4000503@gmx.ch> Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 17:47:22 +0100 From: Jakob Braeuchi User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: OJB Developers List Subject: Re: auto-XXX setting (PART II) References: <4050BE9B.7080700@apache.org> <4050CDF5.30301@gmx.ch> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N hi peter, Peter Wieland wrote: > Hi Armin, Jakob and the others, > > thanks for your mail Armin, The auto-XXX attributes become very clear in > your proposals. > > But I'm not sure whether this is really what we need. My skepticism is > espacially related to the auto-update behaviour you propose for m:n > relations. > > I'm not sure whether it is really a good idea to leave it to the application > programmer to store indirection table entries. While in some cases using > auto-update="true" would be an acceptable solution, I don't think that it is > always the desired behaviour. I think the possibility to just update the > references, i.e. the entries in the indirection table, would be a good > thing. the problem here is referential integrity. if you define constraints on the indirection table (what you should do), then you can not insert rows without having the correspondent rows in m- and n-table. > > Another argument supporting this request is that from an application > programmers point of view, there is no difference in storing the n side of a > 1:n relation or storing one side of a m:n relation. Hence I think we should > not require special treatment for m:n relations with auto-update="false". in a perfect world this would be true ;) in case you live in a not so perfect world, you either have to use auto-update=true or insert the mn-implementors manually... jakob > What do you think? > > Peter > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org