This is not exactly my problem. I construct my Transition object myself. Like this:
Transition t = new Transition(); t.setPostStatus(postStatus); t.setAction(action); t.setPreStatus(preStatus); Now I use the broker to get a ClassDescriptor for Transitions. I iterate over the primary keys (unfortunately one can not define other unique keys...) and want to read the field values to construct an Identity to be used with broker.getObjectWithIdentity. The anonymous field values of self-constructed object are null. Transition objects created (materialized) by the broker might show the correct field value. But this is not the point. I added the fields to the class and do not use the anonymous access anymore. In t.setPostStatus(status) etc. i synchronize the respective field values: postStatusName = postStatus == null? null: postStatus.getName(); I expected the AnonymousPersistentField to return postStatus == null? nul:postStatus.getName() for the anonymous field postStatusName regardless whether this object was created by ty ojb or myself. As I understand all fields can be made anonymous. But for referenced PK's it would make sense to introduce a AnonymousForeignKeyPersistentField? Thanks, Vincenz > -----Original Message----- > From: Jakob Braeuchi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 4:45 PM > To: OJB Users List > Subject: Re: Problem with anonymous keys in 1:n back-mapping (again) > > > hi vincenz, > > 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] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
