the main difference is that you use anonymous primary-keys but this should not cause troubles. imo you'll have to materialize transition to get the fields filled.
see RowReaderDefaultImpl#buildWithReflection (i set a breakpoint in AnonymousPersistentField#set to find out)
hth jakob
Vincenz Braun wrote:
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
