Mailing-List: contact juddi-dev-help@ws.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: juddi-dev@ws.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of kurt.stam@gmail.com
 designates 64.233.170.190 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references
         :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=CAFOCh2dYkM3g4CdC4+53d2WRoXfvz9r55pPVy4rfuKpKI9ASi1i0OdM2dy7BuoO7A
         D0gyx7WHN6jZD8QQ7lv0i2xLbgYpVGVGELwJ7djd2HBx3+N/TvY2g3il19TbXdH34m92
         0iOfu40KsrlIIDz48WVCr8iQ//mzIqXCmYIXA=
Message-ID: <494334A2.50004@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 23:05:54 -0500
From: Kurt T Stam <kurt.stam@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Macintosh/20080707)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: juddi-dev@ws.apache.org
Subject: Re: UDDI v3 persistence
References: <49426B5B.7020101@gmail.com> <002401c95c7e$6dedde70$49c99b50$@org>
 <4942E211.7050406@gmail.com> <004101c95ca9$d1b3a6d0$751af470$@org>
 <4942EEC2.8080707@gmail.com> <005101c95cb2$dea7e910$9bf7bb30$@org>
In-Reply-To: <005101c95cb2$dea7e910$9bf7bb30$@org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Yeah I just finished a first pass. I need to finish up some details 
tomorrow and add some tests to make sure it all works.

--K

Jeff Faath wrote:
>
> Sounds good to me then. I don�t foresee your changes causing any 
> issues other than the fact that I want to hold off on further 
> development until you finish so as not to have to redo anything. 
> Hopefully you�re close to completion?
>
> *From:* Kurt T Stam [mailto:kurt.stam@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, December 12, 2008 5:08 PM
> *To:* juddi-dev@ws.apache.org
> *Subject:* Re: UDDI v3 persistence
>
> Those objects will actually remain the same, the are the actual single 
> valued PKs. So I think this will work well.
>
> Jeff Faath wrote:
>
> No, I'm talking about getting the BusinessEntity by the  business key. I was
> figuring you were going to create these Long id fields for the main entities
> but I could be wrong.  Are the "entity keys" still the primary keys for the
> main entities?
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kurt T Stam [mailto:kurt.stam@gmail.com] 
> Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 4:14 PM
> To: juddi-dev@ws.apache.org <mailto:juddi-dev@ws.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: UDDI v3 persistence
>  
> Are you talking about finding Addresses etc by using the BusinessEntity Key?
>  
> Jeff Faath wrote:
>   
>
>     Now that I think about it, it does cause an inconvenience although it
>
>         
>
> seems
>   
>
>     slight right now (let's hope it stays that way).  Anytime an entity is
>
>     retrieved or deleted, I was able to use the entity key directly to work
>
>         
>
> with
>   
>
>     the object.  A lot of calls receive user input directly as keys (the
>
>     delete_xxx methods, get_xxx methods, etc) and there are many instances
>
>         
>
> where
>   
>
>     I have to check for the existence of an entity.
>
>      
>
>     I guess now instead of using the entity key directly in entityManager
>
>         
>
> calls,
>   
>
>     I'll have to run a query to find the real ID based on the entity key.  I
>
>     don't see this as being a big deal now, but there's a lot of functionality
>
>     to re-work so I hope there are no snags.
>
>      
>
>     -----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 <mailto: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
>
>      
>
>      
>
>       
>
>         
>
>  
>  
>  
>   
>