hi edson,
maybe we have just discovered another configurable feature of ojb.
check-existence-of-proxy = 'true' on the relationship-definition.
jakob
Edson Carlos Ericksson Richter wrote:
An un-elegant way to do same withou select count:
try {
String x = myXobject.getY().toString();
} catch(Nul
An un-elegant way to do same withou select count:
try {
String x = myXobject.getY().toString();
} catch(NullPointerException e) {
... do something because there is no Y...
}
The question is: what cost more? Doing a select count(*) over a indexed
(primary key) field, with all network overhead, o
hi edson,
executing an additional count on each reference proxy is quite expensive. but i
have to admit, i do not have a better solution right now :(
jakob
Edson Carlos Ericksson Richter wrote:
Still with problems when using a 1:0..1 mapping + proxy="dynamic".
The problem is:
when making a ref
7;t know enough about DB2 to suggest that one
query is better than the other. All I know is that only one query worked for
me.
-Original Message-
From: Glenn Barnard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 7:54 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ann]
Still with problems when using a 1:0..1 mapping + proxy="dynamic".
The problem is:
when making a reference between two objects (X:Y) and there can be 0 or
1 object in Y side, Y must resturn NULL if it don't exists in database,
and the object itself if there is 1 object in database. The rule is
m
luded
with the base code?
From: Thomas Mahler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: OJB Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, OJB Users List
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [ann] new release 1.0.RC6
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 14:11:03 +0200
Dear all,
We've got a new rele
OJB Users List
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [ann] new release 1.0.RC6
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 14:11:03 +0200
Dear all,
We've got a new release! Given we find no showstoppers during the next week
we will approach the Project Management Committee (PMC) of the
db.apache.org project to
Appear the afterStore stuff is in place, and operational (so,
RemovalAwareXXX again working fine). Sorry if sometimes I'm so fast in
reporting problems, but I tryied to keep our project tuned to latest OJB
ever (maybe not best policy, but until today solved most our problems
with bugs). Sometim
Hi Edson,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmmm, what about the "1:0..1 and proxies test for null is always false" and the
"afterStore
not being called for collections"? Are they fixed too?
Sorry I don't know. While refactoring the handling of the auto-xxx code
I do my best, but I don't turn my attentio
Hmmm, what about the "1:0..1 and proxies test for null is always false" and the
"afterStore
not being called for collections"? Are they fixed too?
Best regards,
Edson Richter
> Dear all,
>
> We've got a new release! Given we find no showstoppers during the next
> week we will approach the Pro
Dear all,
We've got a new release! Given we find no showstoppers during the next
week we will approach the Project Management Committee (PMC) of the
db.apache.org project to get approval to relabel this release as the
final 1.0 version.
Armin worked hard to get our regression testbed rocksolid
11 matches
Mail list logo
