Hi Jakob,
It was the attribute 'user' that was null, when I made 'userId' anonymous,
and the problem was quite reproducible. I didn't follow up on this because
I moved to the ODMG API, where the problem hasn't occurred so far.
Does your testcase work when setting proxy=false in the collection
descriptor?
Unfortunatelly I don't have the original code any more to do more research
on this problem.
Best regards,
Gerhard
Jakob Braeuchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13.10.2003 20:42
Bitte antworten an "OJB Users List"
An: OJB Users List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Kopie:
Thema: Re: Problem with anonymous keys in 1:n back-mapping (again)
hi vincent,
just to make it clear the attribute 'userId' is null because access is
anonymous and no attribute is required in your class. the attribute
'user' should contain an instance of object User.
i do have a testcase for this feature and it works.
<class-descriptor
class="brj.ojb.Person"
table="tabPerson"
>
<field-descriptor id="1"
name="id"
column="id"
jdbc-type="INTEGER"
primarykey="true"
autoincrement="true"
conversion="brj.ojb.TestFieldConversion"
/>
...
<collection-descriptor
name="konti"
collection-class="org.apache.ojb.broker.util.collections.ManageableArrayList"
orderby="saldo"
sort="ASC"
element-class-ref="brj.ojb.Konto"
proxy="true"
refresh="true"
auto-retrieve="true"
auto-update="true"
auto-delete="true"
>
<inverse-foreignkey field-ref="idPerson"/>
<class-descriptor
class="brj.ojb.Konto"
table="tabKonto"
>
<field-descriptor id="1"
name="idKto"
column="id"
jdbc-type="INTEGER"
primarykey="true"
autoincrement="true"
/>
<field-descriptor id="2"
name="idPerson"
column="idPerson"
jdbc-type="INTEGER"
access="anonymous"
/>
...
<reference-descriptor
name="inhaber"
class-ref="brj.ojb.Person"
>
<foreignkey field-ref="idPerson"/>
</reference-descriptor>
hth
jakob
Vincenz Braun wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have the same problem described earlier in this list by
> Gerhard Grosse. What is the status of this issue? Is someone
> working on this or has at least committed a bug report? I queried
> scarab and did not find a matching issue, yet.
>
> Any help greatly appreciated.
> Vincenz
>
>
> original post from Gerhard Grosse:
>
> tried to implement a bi-directional 1:n association between classes
User
> and UserRole with an anonymous key in UserRole:
>
> <class-descriptor
> class="de.lexcom.noralinkojb.model.User"
> table="OJB.USERS">
>
> <field-descriptor
> name="id"
> column="ID"
> jdbc-type="INTEGER"
> primarykey="true"
> autoincrement="true"/>
>
> <collection-descriptor
> name="roles"
> element-class-ref="de.lexcom.noralinkojb.model.UserRole"
> auto-retrieve="true"
> auto-update="true"
> auto-delete="true">
> <inverse-foreignkey field-ref="userId"/>
> </collection-descriptor>
>
> </class-descriptor>
>
> <class-descriptor
> class="de.lexcom.noralinkojb.model.UserRole"
> table="OJB.USER_ROLES">
>
> <field-descriptor
> name="userId"
> column="USER_ID"
> jdbc-type="INTEGER"
> primarykey="true"
> access="anonymous"/>
>
> <field-descriptor
> name="role"
> column="ROLE"
> jdbc-type="INTEGER"
> primarykey="true"/>
>
> <reference-descriptor
> name="user"
> class-ref="de.lexcom.noralinkojb.model.User"
> auto-retrieve="true">
> <foreignkey field-ref="userId"/>
> </reference-descriptor>
>
> </class-descriptor>
>
> When I now load a User object which has associated UserRoles, the user
> attribute of all UserRoles is null. The problem disappears when I make
> userId a normal attribute of UserRole.
>
> Is this a known limitation of anonymous keys, is it a bug or am I doing
> something wrong here?
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
