hi jakob,
my problem might be a little bit different. I have tables Actions and
Statutes
with a string primary key. Table Transitions has three columns
preStatusName,
actionName, postStatusName.
preStatusName and postStatusName reference to primary key of Statuses and
actionName
references to primary key of Actions.
Table Transitions has a compound primary key (preStatusName, actionName,
postStatusName).
<class-descriptor class="Transition" table="Transitions">
<field-descriptor name="preStatusName" column="preStatusName"
primaryKey="true" access="anonymous"/>
<field-descriptor name="actionName" column="actionName" primaryKey="true"
access="anonymous"/>
<field-descriptor name="postStatusName" column="postStatusName"
primaryKey="true" access="anonymous"/>
<reference-descriptor name="preStatus" class-ref="Status">
<foreign-key field-ref="preStatusName"/>
</reference-descriptor>
<reference-descriptor name="action" class-ref="Action">
<foreign-key field-ref="actionName"/>
</reference-descriptor>
<reference-descriptor name="postStatus" class-ref="Status">
<foreign-key field-ref="postStatusName"/>
</reference-descriptor>
</class-descriptor>
I use the PB Api only to get meta information of a class (PrimaryKeys etc.)
to build up
a query for that class depending on the values of the primary key (e.g. to
look up the class).
When I use field.get(transition) I get null for the anonymous fields. When I
remove
the access type anonymous everything is fine. The transition object might
not be constructed
by the PB e.g.
I have
Transition t = new Transition();
t.setPostStatus(postStatus);
t.setAction(action);
t.setPreStatus(preStatus);
persistentField.get(t) returns null where persistentField is one of the
three declared fields
with anonymous access. Is postStatusName anonymously mapped to
postStatus.name? Or has the
transition object to be materialized from the PB to return the correct field
values?
Thank you very much,
Vincenz
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jakob Braeuchi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 8:42 PM
> To: OJB Users List
> Subject: 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.Manag
> eableArrayList"
> 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]
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
