Right on. I'm thinking a basic field such as a date would always be considered loaded. The documentation is a little ambiguous around this point and I'm not quite ready to dig into the OpenJPA source code just yet.
I think posting a bug with a simplified test case is my next step, I just wanted to make sure I wasn't completely mis-reading the documentation before moving an issue report forward. -jmh On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 10:31 AM, Daryl Stultz<da...@6degrees.com> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 10:18 AM, Jason Hanna < > jason.m.hanna.at.coincid...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> fields that would have been included in the >> detached state are treated as loaded, and will in turn set the >> corresponding attached field to null. >> > > I would say, if you think it's a bug, create a test case with an entity that > defines a field that "would have been included in the detached state". > Persist an instance, detach it, set the field to null, merge it, verify the > null value in the database. The question for me is, what qualifies as a > field that "would have been included in the detached state". I would think > a Date would always be loaded. Of course, there is the scenario in which the > entity is instantiated from a native query that doesn't select the Date > field. Then it is truly unloaded and should not update the DB with null. > > -- > Daryl Stultz > _____________________________________ > 6 Degrees Software and Consulting, Inc. > http://www.6degrees.com > mailto:da...@6degrees.com >
