Re: Deletion Bug!!!!!?
hi tino, i agree this behaviour is dangerous and it should _not_ be the default behaviour. i would also like the collection to be insertion-aware. but i think these features are already implemented in odmg-api; so we kinda duplicate functionality here. jakob TINO SCHÖLLHORN wrote: Hi Olli, and what about changing the default behaviour again? Honestly I think it is pretty "dangerous" because when I want to remove a relation I just want to remove this relation. It is another thing when I remove an instance of a class - then the default behaviour could delete the relations as well - but the deletion of the main-instance when removing a relation to it is really discomforting. Tino - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Newsgroups: gmane.comp.jakarta.ojb.user Sent: Friday, November 28, 2003 9:09 AM Subject: RE: Deletion Bug!? Hello, -Original Message- thanks - I think that was the solution. But I don't think that it was intended by the developers of OJB that OJB deletes instances by default, or was it? no it was not, so OJB did not do it. Then a lot of users complained, so we changed it. That was probably a mistake. Now it is one of the most frequently asked questions. Just search the mailing list archives for 'RemovalAware' or the like. Olli - 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]
Re: Deletion Bug!!!!!?
Hi Olli, and what about changing the default behaviour again? Honestly I think it is pretty "dangerous" because when I want to remove a relation I just want to remove this relation. It is another thing when I remove an instance of a class - then the default behaviour could delete the relations as well - but the deletion of the main-instance when removing a relation to it is really discomforting. Tino - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Newsgroups: gmane.comp.jakarta.ojb.user Sent: Friday, November 28, 2003 9:09 AM Subject: RE: Deletion Bug!? > Hello, > > > -Original Message- > > > > thanks - I think that was the solution. But I don't think that it was > > intended by the developers of OJB that > > OJB deletes instances by default, or was it? > > no it was not, so OJB did not do it. Then a lot of users > complained, so we changed it. That was probably a mistake. > Now it is one of the most frequently asked questions. > Just search the mailing list archives for > 'RemovalAware' or the like. > > Olli - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Deletion Bug!!!!!?
Hello, > -Original Message- > > thanks - I think that was the solution. But I don't think that it was > intended by the developers of OJB that > OJB deletes instances by default, or was it? no it was not, so OJB did not do it. Then a lot of users complained, so we changed it. That was probably a mistake. Now it is one of the most frequently asked questions. Just search the mailing list archives for 'RemovalAware' or the like. Olli - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Deletion Bug!!!!!?
Hi, thanks - I think that was the solution. But I don't think that it was intended by the developers of OJB that OJB deletes instances by default, or was it? Tino - Original Message - From: "Philippe Boisaubert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Newsgroups: gmane.comp.jakarta.ojb.user Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2003 4:16 PM Subject: Re: Deletion Bug!? > Always the same question, I ask it few days ago ! > First you need to configure your repository (with auto-delete="false"), i > think you've already do this. > Then use the ManagedArrayList as a collection class (by default it's a > RemovalAwareCollection) > > like this (as an a attribute of the collection descriptor element): > collection-class= > "org.apache.ojb.broker.util.collections.ManageableArrayList" > > > - Original Message - > From: "TINO SCHÖLLHORN" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2003 3:57 PM > Subject: Deletion Bug!? > > > > Hi, > > > > I have a really weird problem and I don't if I am doing something wrong or > > if this is a bug of OJB. > > > > I have basically 2 classes: Person and Department. I defined a N:M > relation > > between those two. > > > > Now I want to remove a Department from a Person. But what happens is, that > > OJB is trying to delete ALL relations to other classes and is then > deleting > > the Department as well!!! > > > > Do I have to change my configuration? Or is this a bug? > > > > In hope for help. > > > > Tino > > > > > > > > > > - > > 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]
Re: Deletion Bug!!!!!?
Always the same question, I ask it few days ago ! First you need to configure your repository (with auto-delete="false"), i think you've already do this. Then use the ManagedArrayList as a collection class (by default it's a RemovalAwareCollection) like this (as an a attribute of the collection descriptor element): collection-class= "org.apache.ojb.broker.util.collections.ManageableArrayList" - Original Message - From: "TINO SCHÖLLHORN" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2003 3:57 PM Subject: Deletion Bug!? > Hi, > > I have a really weird problem and I don't if I am doing something wrong or > if this is a bug of OJB. > > I have basically 2 classes: Person and Department. I defined a N:M relation > between those two. > > Now I want to remove a Department from a Person. But what happens is, that > OJB is trying to delete ALL relations to other classes and is then deleting > the Department as well!!! > > Do I have to change my configuration? Or is this a bug? > > In hope for help. > > Tino > > > > > - > 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]