Hi Abe,
I like this approach better - since we already have at least one customer
hitting the corner case. The caveats seem reasonable to me, but then again
I'm not working on Kodo ;-).
Does anyone else object, or have other concerns?
-Mike
On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 3:41 PM, Abe White <[EMAIL PROT
Here's another option that might suit everyone:
- We change the enhancement so that a non-default auto-assigned pk field
makes an instance detached even in the absence of detached state, as I
proposed.
- If the entity doesn't use auto-assigned pk fields (and has no version
field) and detached stat
Hi Abe,
I'm guilty of not updating 245 after I finished it. The scenario that got me
to look into it is the edge case you mentioned - the entity has no auto
generated fields.
Improving the story for other scenarios sounds good to me and I like the
approach.
My main concern is that we don't break
OpenJPA typically uses an enhancer-added "detached state field" to
differentiate newly-constructed instances that need to be inserted vs.
detached instances that need to be updated on merge. This is covered in
more detail in the user manual.
OpenJPA also allows users with version fields to manual
