juddi-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jeff Faath" <jfa...@apache.org>
Subject RE: UDDI v3 persistence
Date Fri, 12 Dec 2008 17:06:49 GMT
Seems reasonable and I believe it's considered better form to use a
"surrogate key" as the primary key as opposed to using a field (or fields)
that has business meaning.  Obviously, the entity key columns in the main
entity tables should be made non-nullable and unique.

This will require cosmetic yet wholesale changes to the querying and mapping
components.  How soon can you get this done? I'd like to make these changes
as soon as possible so as not to cause any delays.

-Jeff


-----Original Message-----
From: Kurt T Stam [mailto:kurt.stam@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 7:47 AM
To: juddi-dev@ws.apache.org
Subject: UDDI v3 persistence

Hi guys,

I'm halfway into removing all the *Id.java classes from the persistence 
layer on the UDDI v3 branch, and it is making it all a lot cleaner. The 
reason they are there is b/c the way the PKs are setup in the UDDI v2 
schema. They are composite PK, however we can simplify the PKs to be of 
type Long.

Does anyone see any issues with this? Where we planning on using the 
parents business keys for fast searching or something? Are we afraid of 
running out of 'integers' in the ID columns?

Speak up or hold your peace forever ;).

--Kurt


Mime
View raw message