Hi Jakob,
You're right. I traced my problem further to a different point in OJB
where I do believe there is a problem (see my followup message).
Thanks,
Scott
-Original Message-
From: Jakob Braeuchi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 3:45 PM
To: OJB Users List
Subject: Re: Bug in PersistenceBroker.getCount() ?
hi scott,
i just did some tests with proxied m:n association where getCount() is
called. i changed the test-classes to have a difference between
column-name and attribute-name. so far everything was ok.
the attribute-name will be translated into column-name by the
SqlGenerator., so there should be no need to specify it in getCount().
jakob
Scott Howlett wrote:
I just changed my database schema such that one of my tables now has a
primary key field whose name is different than the column name in the
database.
Things worked OK in general until I referenced the table from another
table via an M:N association. I then got an SQL exception complaining
that I was trying to access the table using the field name, not the
column name.
I think I've traced the problem to
PersistenceBrokerImpl.getCount(Query)
- in this routine a report query is made, but it's being populated with
attribute names, not column names. The offending lines of code:
for (int i = 0; i pkFields.length; i++)
{
if (query.isDistinct())
{
columns[i] = count(distinct + pkFields[i].getAttributeName()
+ );
}
else
{
columns[i] = count( + pkFields[i].getAttributeName() + );
}
}
Should the above getAttributeName() calls should be replaced with
getColumnName() instead?
Regards,
Scott Howlett
-
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]
