Re: Minutes: JDO TCK Conference Call Friday, July 14 9 am PST

[Jörg von Frantzius]

Hello Craig, if I understand things right, you changed your mind and now you don't see a any problem with JPOX's automatic nulling out of FKs? If that's the case, then I wonder why a user would want to have FK constraints in his schema at all? They wouldn't be of much use then. I may also add that, as far as I know, JPOX nulls out only for one-one bidirectional, not for one-many, so there would be some inconsistency of behaviour here. Regards, Jörg Craig L Russell schrieb: 2. Deletion of objects when foreign-key is present (JDO-392) (any and all) It seems that there are two different issues: managing the memory model and managing the database. Craig opines that the general case of consistency is already covered in the chapter on mapping, requiring that the object model be consistent after a flush. Object model consistency would disallow a reference to a deleted object, so the natural behavior would be to nullify the reference to the deleted object. For to-many relationships mapped to a foreign key on the other side, the consistency rule would delete the reference from the collection on the one- side of the relationship. So it seems that the JPOX behavior as originally reported is consistent and we might simply document it in the specification. Why does object model consistency disallow a reference to a deleted object?