No prob. If possible, email me that stuff please. Thx. $kala. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gareth Cronin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'OJB Users List'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 9:58 PM Subject: RE: Nasty gotcha with... ROSE->repository.xml
> I wrote a tool making use of the CrazyBeans Rose-parsing API > (crazybeans.sf.net). I've just got to clear it with my superiors before I > can *officially* make it open source, the tool is a wee bit specific to the > stuff I'm working on here, but I'd be happy to email you the raw code and > let you try and it going :). > > G > > -----Original Message----- > From: Marian Skalsky [mailto:ms@;euromove.sk] > Sent: Wednesday, 30 October 2002 20:41 > To: OJB Users List > Subject: Re: Nasty gotcha with... ROSE->repository.xml > > > Hi there! > Can you please specify how do you generate the repository.xml from the Rose > ? > Do you have some special plugin ? > I would like to try it. > Thank you. > $kala. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Gareth Cronin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "OJB Users List (E-mail)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 12:00 AM > Subject: Nasty gotcha with non-sequential field-descriptor ids > > > > I saw a post a while back querying the necessity of completely sequential > > field-descriptor ids... I just found out the hard way what happens if they > > are non-sequential. I generate my repository.xml from a Rational Rose > model > > and so the ids are assigned to field-descriptors as the model is parsed. > For > > the next available field-descriptor id, I was just taking the next value > > beyond the current maximum for a given class-descriptor - this was leaving > > some "holes", e.g. I'd have field descriptors numbered 1, 2, 4, 5. This > > didn't cause any problems... until... > > > > When I saved a new class with a cascade-update collection, OJB would > assign > > the same primary key ID to every member of the collection and save every > > member of the collection as though it was the same object. Therefore, I'd > > end up with one row in a database table instead of 10, with the values of > > the row reflecting the last member of the collection that was saved. > > > > I've now changed the code generator to fill in the holes in the numbering. > > But I do wonder, is this behaviour really desirable? Will the ids be > ditched > > at some point? > > > > Thanks > > > > Gareth. > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > Gareth Cronin > > Analyst/Programmer > > Kiwiplan NZ Ltd, Auckland, New Zealand > > Ph 64 9 2727622 x854 > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > > > -- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:ojb-user-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org> > > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:ojb-user-help@;jakarta.apache.org> > > > > > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:ojb-user-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:ojb-user-help@;jakarta.apache.org> > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:ojb-user-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:ojb-user-help@;jakarta.apache.org> > > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:ojb-user-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:ojb-user-help@;jakarta.apache.org>
