Armin:
Thanks a lot for the help. It works now. In addition to what you
pointed out, I also had a bug on my side related to interfaces and extents
that caused OJB to get confused when connecting collections.
thanks again,
Brad
I also noticed the problem with the
At 08:32 PM 6/23/2004
Hello again:
I have encountered an issue with the recursive graph structure that I
asked about a couple of weeks ago. Below is a snippet from the
repository.xml. Basically I have a DAGNode that has a list of parents and
a list of children. I am able to get everything loaded in OJB
Hi Brad,
could you please send a junit test or a code snip to reproduce this
behavior? I will integrate your test to test-suite.
regards,
Armin
Bradford Pielech wrote:
Hello again:
I have encountered an issue with the recursive graph structure that
I asked about a couple of weeks ago.
Armin:
Sure, no problem. Apologies for the formatting, but the basic idea should
be clear. I also attached my OJB.properties and repository_user.xml.
thanks!
Brad
SimpleDagNode class:
---
public class SimpleDAGNode{
private List children;
private String
Oops, just realized there was a logic bug in the junit test that makes the
code incorrect because I had to quickly rewrite the test to remove unneeded
subclasses and such. Here is the correct version:
public void testAddNewChild() throws Exception {
SimpleDAGNode nodeA = new nodeANode();
seems you use an user specific PersistenceBroker implementation, can you
post methods
broker.addEntity(nodeA);
broker.linkEntity(nodeA, nodeB);
too.
regards,
Armin
Bradford Pielech wrote:
Oops, just realized there was a logic bug in the junit test that makes
the code incorrect because I had to
yeah, those are basically wrappers to underlying broker methods.
The addEntity method is a wrapper for the following method that accesses
the persistence broker:
public boolean addEntity(SimpleDagNode nodeA) throws Exception {
PersistenceBroker pbroker =
Hi Brad,
good news! Seems to work.
I checked in a new test case show how to use PB-api to
store/retrieve/delete object hierarchies via m:n relation with different
collection-descriptor auto-xxx settings.
Main difference to your test is that I use two table (one for tree
object, the other as
