db-ojb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Clute, Andrew" <Andrew.Cl...@etech.ohio.gov>
Subject RE: Read-only Anonymous keys?
Date Sat, 27 Aug 2005 13:45:17 GMT
Well, I took a look at implementing such a feature, and it was trivial.
It really only hit 2 spots.

Does anyone have any objects to me adding a new access type to the
field-descriptor named "anonymous-readonly"? This type responds true for
both isReadOnly() and isAnonymous(). 

If it is ok, the only thing left I will need to do is modify the xdoclet
module to be aware of the change.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Clute, Andrew [mailto:Andrew.Clute@etech.ohio.gov] 
> Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 12:48 PM
> To: OJB Developers List
> Subject: Read-only Anonymous keys?
> I have a situation where I have an object that is backed by a 
> view. This view is a composite of a couple tables, however 
> for this object, only the fields from one particular table 
> are the ones that need to be updatable. This works ok with 
> MSSQL as views are able to be updatable as long as you do an 
> update on columns from one of the tables.
> My issue is that some of the fields of this objects (and that 
> are part of the table I don't want to update) are FK's to 
> other objects. I am using anonymous keys to create the 
> references. However, whenever the update statement is created 
> for this objects, it adds to the SET clause these columns, 
> which is a no-no.
> What I would like to do is be able to mark the field as both 
> anonymous and read-only. I don't want OJB to attempt to 
> update those columns for that relationship. 
> Thoughts? Am I missing something small, or is there some 
> reason this should never be done?
> -Andrew

To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org

View raw message