hi gerhard,
well i'm not sure about this. afterStore could be useful on any kind of
collection, no matter what they do in this method. the difficult thing is
that removal-aware-collections actually deletes objects and that this
behaviour is only expected when auto-delete is true !
i think we need some assistance on this topic.
jakob
> Hi Jakob,
>
> I guess it makes sense to call afterStore only if auto-update is true.
> I do not really know what ODMG has to say on this, especially since we
> avoid using the ODMG collections (DList, etc) since we do not want to
> "pollute" our object model with classes of the persistence mechanism.
>
> We will resort to explicitly deleting the removed objects with
> db.deletePersistent() (which is basically the same as tx.markDelete()
> I guess). This seems to be the most stable solution.
>
> There is a tiny glitch in ObjectEnvelopeTable's reorder mechanism
> though: If I mark an object in a collection to be deleted _and_ at the
> same time remove it from the collection (to keep the object model in
> sync with the DB), reorderCollection will not find the removed object
> any more and will not move the delete operation up in the operation
> order. If the containing object (which holds the collection) is
> deleted in the same transaction, a FK violation will occur...
>
> Thanks for looking into this!
> Gerhard
>
> On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 22:35:36 +0200, Jakob Braeuchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >hi gerhard,
> >
> >this is eventually my fault. in PBImpl#storeCollection i call afterStore
> only if
> > auto-update is set:
> >
> >....
> > // BRJ: only when auto-update = object (CASCADE_OBJECT)
> > //
> > if ((cod.getCascadingStore() ==
> ObjectReferenceDescriptor.CASCADE_OBJECT)
> > && (referencedObjects instanceof ManageableCollection))
> > {
> > ((ManageableCollection) referencedObjects).afterStore(this);
> > }
> >
> >odmg requires the auto-settings to be false, so afterStore is _not_
> called.
> >
> >this change was introduced on july 26. actually i do not know, whether we
> should
> >go back to the old solution ???
> >
> >jakob
> >
> >Jakob Braeuchi schrieb:
> >
> >> hi gerhard,
> >>
> >> i marked the removed object as deletable, then it worked:
> >>
> >> tx.begin();
> >> //*************************************
> >> tx.lock(fetchedGat, Transaction.WRITE);
> >> // Remove collection object
> >> tx.markDelete(fetchedGat.getCollectiblesC().remove(0));
> >> //*************************************
> >> tx.commit();
> >>
> >> jakob
> >>
> >> Jakob Braeuchi schrieb:
> >>
> >>> hi gerhard,
> >>>
> >>> afterStore() is not called when using odmg (it is for pb-api !). i'm
> >>> not an odmg-expert, so i do not know if it's an error or if there
> >>> should be a different mechanism to remove those elements.
> >>>
> >>> jakob
> >>>
> >>> Gerhard Grosse schrieb:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> we are trying to upgrade our OJB version from RC5 to 1.0.1.
> >>>> We are using the ODMG API.
> >>>>
> >>>> In RC5, when removing items from a collection of a write-locked
> >>>> object, the transaction commit deleted the removed items from the
> >>>> database. This does not seem happen any more in v1.0.1. All that is
> >>>> sent to the DB is an (unnecessary) SQL UPDATE on the locked object
> >>>> that actually does not change anything.
> >>>> Debugging showed that the collection class is a materialized
> ListProxy
> >>>> holding a RemovalAwareCollection (as expected). Also as expected, the
> >>>> allObjectsToBeRemoved member of this RemovableAwareCollection
> contains
> >>>> the items to be removed. However the items do not get removed during
> >>>> the transaction commit, and after commit the allObjectsToBeRemoved
> >>>> member still contains the same items. We also tried write-locking all
> >>>> collection items and doing a flush at various points, but no luck.
> >>>>
> >>>> How should we remove items from a collection with ODMG in OJB 1.0.1?
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks for any help!
> >>>> Gerhard
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> 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]
>
--
GMX ProMail mit bestem Virenschutz http://www.gmx.net/de/go/mail
+++ Empfehlung der Redaktion +++ Internet Professionell 10/04 +++
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
