[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-215?page=comments#action_12357945 ]
Craig Russell commented on JDO-215:
-----------------------------------
The patch seems right. What the JDO implementation has to do is to recognize
that the primary key (if needed) for the join table must be a composite key
consisting of the key referencing the owning table and id column from the
mapped key. For example,
CREATE TABLE SET_OF_OBJECT0
(
IDENTIFIER INTEGER REFERENCES SET_COLLECTIONS NOT NULL,
OBJREF BIGINT REFERENCES SIMPLE_CLASS NOT NULL
);
The primary key for this table (if it is needed by the implementation -- let's
discuss this) would be IDENTIFIER plus OBJREF.
CREATE TABLE SET_OF_OBJECT1
(
IDENTIFIER INTEGER REFERENCES SET_COLLECTIONS NOT NULL,
ID BIGINT NOT NULL,
INTVAL INTEGER NOT NULL,
STRINGVAL VARCHAR(128) NOT NULL
);
The primary key for this table would be IDENTIFIER plus ID.
> Remove <order> from mapping for HashSetCollections and SetCollections.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: JDO-215
> URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-215
> Project: JDO
> Type: Bug
> Components: tck20
> Reporter: Craig Russell
> Assignee: Michelle Caisse
> Attachments: JDO-215.patch
>
> The mapping for HashSetCollections and SetCollections incorrectly have
> <order> columns.
> There should not be an ordering specified for the join table since duplicates
> are not allowed. The mapping for application identity should not need a
> primary key, since the JDO implementation should be able to figure out that
> the primary key is part of the Map.key, but the datastore identity mapping
> does need a primary key (and again, I'd use the id field of SimpleClass as
> the join table key column.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators:
http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see:
http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
