db-torque-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Sperlich, Tino" <t.sperl...@hpc-hamburg.de>
Subject AW: defaultIdMethod="none"
Date Mon, 06 Sep 2004 12:37:01 GMT
Hi Henning,

I agree that autoincrement would be
the right choice to use, because it
doesn't create a key and retrieves the
key after the record is written.

But, how does autoincrement work for DBOracle?
I have debugged into some sample code and
it looked like the dbMap had the Sequence generators for all
types of idMethods like this:
{sequence=org.apache.torque.oid.SequenceIdGenerator@1a5770, idbroker=org.apache.torque.oid.IDBroker@13f348b,
autoincrement=org.apache.torque.oid.SequenceIdGenerator@1628b8d, native=org.apache.torque.oid.SequenceIdGenerator@b80f1c}

in this case setting my table idMethod="autoincrement" would
be equal to using "native", and I guess that's the behaviour
Ferruh is experiencing...

please correct me if I'm wrong or I've missed something...
I am using torque-3.1 from september 2003.



-----Urspr√ľngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Henning P. Schmiedehausen [mailto:hps@intermeta.de]
Gesendet: Montag, 6. September 2004 14:07
An: torque-user@db.apache.org
Betreff: Re: defaultIdMethod="none"

"Ferruh Zamangoer" <ferruh.zamangoer@gistec-online.de> writes:

>Hi Tino,

>I know Hennings posting, but the problem is that the option autoincrement is
>deprecated in torque-gen-3.1, I also know that the option is not removed
>from this package I can use it, but I do not prefer it because I don't know
>what can be occure in later version for example when autoincrement option is

As I said. If you can make a case where "autoincrement" is useful, we
might simply remove the deprecation.

The deprecation comes from a time where "sequence", "autoincrement"
and everything else were planned to be faded out in favor of "native"
(which IMHO sucks).

"autoincrement" is in fact a misnomer. This should be
"database-handled" or something like this.

If it works for you: use it. It will _definitely_ not removed for the
3.1 tree (3.1, 3.1.1, 3.1.2 and so on) and this already makes a strong
case for keeping this (maybe renamed) in 3.2.


Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen          INTERMETA GmbH
hps@intermeta.de        +49 9131 50 654 0   http://www.intermeta.de/

RedHat Certified Engineer -- Jakarta Turbine Development  -- hero for hire
   Linux, Java, perl, Solaris -- Consulting, Training, Development

"Fighting for one's political stand is an honorable action, but re-
 fusing to acknowledge that there might be weaknesses in one's
 position - in order to identify them so that they can be remedied -
 is a large enough problem with the Open Source movement that it
 deserves to be on this list of the top five problems."
                       -- Michelle Levesque, "Fundamental Issues with
                                    Open Source Software Development"

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

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

View raw message