You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to jdo-dev@db.apache.org by Jörg von Frantzius <jo...@artnology.com> on 2006/01/27 16:30:51 UTC
Re: Dependent and element-dependent
Please see my comments below on how JPOX will treat dependent vs.
element-dependent on collection fields. Please reply if you have objections!
Craig L Russell schrieb:
> Hi Jörg,
>
> On Nov 3, 2005, at 1:49 AM, Jörg von Frantzius wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> the specification currently is somewhat confusing where it defines
>> the meta-data attributes "dependent" and "element-dependent".
>> Concerning "dependent" it says:
>>
>> "The dependent attribute indicates that the field contains a
>> reference that is to be deleted
>
> The reference is the object that is referenced by the field. I'll try
> to clarify this in the spec.
>
>> from the datastore if the referring instance in which the field is
>> declared is deleted, or if the
>> referring field is nullified."
>>
>> Now does that mean that really the *reference* is to be deleted
>> (which seems kinda natural to me), or rather the object being
>> referred to? Probably the latter?
>
> Yes.
>>
>> For collection fields, there is the additional "dependent-element"
>> attribute of the "collection" tag. Wouldn't it be enough to have
>> "dependent" on the field level?
>
> We try to make the field metadata refer to behavior of the field
> itself, and put the behavior of multi-valued field types (array,
> collection, map) in separate metadata to better match the semantics of
> Collection versus Element.
>
> We could make it illegal to specify dependent on field types of array,
> collection, and map...
>
>> Or what does it mean if the user specifies 'dependent="false"' with
>> nested 'element-dependent="true"', or vice-versa?
>
> See above.
JPOX will ignore any "dependent" attribute setting on Collection fields,
so only the "element-dependent" attribute will be of meaning for
Collection fields.
>
> Experts, any opinion on this subject?
>
> Craig
>>
>> Thanks for any explanations,
>> Jörg
>>
>> --__________________________________________________________
>> Dipl.-Inf. Jörg von Frantzius | artnology GmbH
>> | Milastr. 4
>> Tel +49 (0)30 4435 099 26 | 10437 Berlin
>> Fax +49 (0)30 4435 099 99 | http://www.artnology.com
>> _______________________________|__________________________
>>
>
> Craig Russell
> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>
>
--
__________________________________________________________
Dipl.-Inf. Jörg von Frantzius | artnology GmbH
| Milastr. 4
Tel +49 (0)30 4435 099 26 | 10437 Berlin
Fax +49 (0)30 4435 099 99 | http://www.artnology.com
_______________________________|__________________________
Re: VOTE: Dependent and element-dependent
Posted by Jörg von Frantzius <jo...@artnology.com>.
Craig L Russell schrieb:
> Hi Jörg,
>
> It seems we have these alternatives:
>
> [ ] 1. Remove attribute dependent-element from element collection and
> element array and use attribute dependent on element field to describe
> this.
>
> [ ] 2. Disallow use of attribute dependent on element field for
> collection and array type fields (throw an exception if the user
> specifies a value for the attribute dependent).
>
> [ ] 3. Allow use of attribute dependent-element in element collection
> and element array and allow use of attribute dependent on element
> field but require that they not both be specified.
>
> [ ] 4. Allow use of attribute dependent-element in element collection
> and element array and allow use of attribute dependent on element
> field but require that if they are both specified, they be the same
> value.
>
> [ ] 5. Ignore use of attribute dependent on element field for
> collection and array type fields.
>
> If you have a strong preference please vote. My favorite is
>
> 2. This makes it clear where the dependency needs to be declared. The
> only issue that I can see is for object databases where the field
> level dependent actually does refer to the collection itself. But I
> cannot see that there is a need to allow non-dependent collection
> instances of dependent references.
I second number 2. Also because we still have dependent-key and
dependent-value to be declared somewhere for map fields, and I find it
good to have that declared in the same manner as for collection and
array fields. I find throwing of an exception also better than just
issuing warnings that can get lost among other output, as a simple
mistake can lead to loss of data here.
>
> Craig
>
> On Jan 27, 2006, at 7:30 AM, Jörg von Frantzius wrote:
>
>> Please see my comments below on how JPOX will treat dependent vs.
>> element-dependent on collection fields. Please reply if you have
>> objections!
>>
>> Craig L Russell schrieb:
>>> Hi Jörg,
>>>
>>> On Nov 3, 2005, at 1:49 AM, Jörg von Frantzius wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> the specification currently is somewhat confusing where it defines
>>>> the meta-data attributes "dependent" and "element-dependent".
>>>> Concerning "dependent" it says:
>>>>
>>>> "The dependent attribute indicates that the field contains a
>>>> reference that is to be deleted
>>>
>>> The reference is the object that is referenced by the field. I'll
>>> try to clarify this in the spec.
>>>
>>>> from the datastore if the referring instance in which the field is
>>>> declared is deleted, or if the
>>>> referring field is nullified."
>>>>
>>>> Now does that mean that really the *reference* is to be deleted
>>>> (which seems kinda natural to me), or rather the object being
>>>> referred to? Probably the latter?
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>>>
>>>> For collection fields, there is the additional "dependent-element"
>>>> attribute of the "collection" tag. Wouldn't it be enough to have
>>>> "dependent" on the field level?
>>>
>>> We try to make the field metadata refer to behavior of the field
>>> itself, and put the behavior of multi-valued field types (array,
>>> collection, map) in separate metadata to better match the semantics
>>> of Collection versus Element.
>>>
>>> We could make it illegal to specify dependent on field types of
>>> array, collection, and map...
>>>
>>>> Or what does it mean if the user specifies 'dependent="false"' with
>>>> nested 'element-dependent="true"', or vice-versa?
>>>
>>> See above.
>> JPOX will ignore any "dependent" attribute setting on Collection
>> fields, so only the "element-dependent" attribute will be of meaning
>> for Collection fields.
>>>
>>> Experts, any opinion on this subject?
>>>
>>> Craig
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for any explanations,
>>>> Jörg
>>>>
>>>> --__________________________________________________________
>>>> Dipl.-Inf. Jörg von Frantzius | artnology GmbH
>>>> | Milastr. 4
>>>> Tel +49 (0)30 4435 099 26 | 10437 Berlin
>>>> Fax +49 (0)30 4435 099 99 | http://www.artnology.com
>>>> _______________________________|__________________________
>>>>
>>>
>>> Craig Russell
>>> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
>>> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
>>> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --__________________________________________________________
>> Dipl.-Inf. Jörg von Frantzius | artnology GmbH
>> | Milastr. 4
>> Tel +49 (0)30 4435 099 26 | 10437 Berlin
>> Fax +49 (0)30 4435 099 99 | http://www.artnology.com
>> _______________________________|__________________________
>>
>
> Craig Russell
> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>
--
__________________________________________________________
Dipl.-Inf. Jörg von Frantzius | artnology GmbH
| Milastr. 4
Tel +49 (0)30 4435 099 26 | 10437 Berlin
Fax +49 (0)30 4435 099 99 | http://www.artnology.com
_______________________________|__________________________
VOTE: Dependent and element-dependent
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
Hi Jörg,
It seems we have these alternatives:
[ ] 1. Remove attribute dependent-element from element collection and
element array and use attribute dependent on element field to
describe this.
[ ] 2. Disallow use of attribute dependent on element field for
collection and array type fields (throw an exception if the user
specifies a value for the attribute dependent).
[ ] 3. Allow use of attribute dependent-element in element collection
and element array and allow use of attribute dependent on element
field but require that they not both be specified.
[ ] 4. Allow use of attribute dependent-element in element collection
and element array and allow use of attribute dependent on element
field but require that if they are both specified, they be the same
value.
[ ] 5. Ignore use of attribute dependent on element field for
collection and array type fields.
If you have a strong preference please vote. My favorite is
2. This makes it clear where the dependency needs to be declared. The
only issue that I can see is for object databases where the field
level dependent actually does refer to the collection itself. But I
cannot see that there is a need to allow non-dependent collection
instances of dependent references.
Craig
On Jan 27, 2006, at 7:30 AM, Jörg von Frantzius wrote:
> Please see my comments below on how JPOX will treat dependent vs.
> element-dependent on collection fields. Please reply if you have
> objections!
>
> Craig L Russell schrieb:
>> Hi Jörg,
>>
>> On Nov 3, 2005, at 1:49 AM, Jörg von Frantzius wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> the specification currently is somewhat confusing where it
>>> defines the meta-data attributes "dependent" and "element-
>>> dependent". Concerning "dependent" it says:
>>>
>>> "The dependent attribute indicates that the field contains a
>>> reference that is to be deleted
>>
>> The reference is the object that is referenced by the field. I'll
>> try to clarify this in the spec.
>>
>>> from the datastore if the referring instance in which the
>>> field is
>>> declared is deleted, or if the
>>> referring field is nullified."
>>>
>>> Now does that mean that really the *reference* is to be deleted
>>> (which seems kinda natural to me), or rather the object being
>>> referred to? Probably the latter?
>>
>> Yes.
>>>
>>> For collection fields, there is the additional "dependent-
>>> element" attribute of the "collection" tag. Wouldn't it be enough
>>> to have "dependent" on the field level?
>>
>> We try to make the field metadata refer to behavior of the field
>> itself, and put the behavior of multi-valued field types (array,
>> collection, map) in separate metadata to better match the
>> semantics of Collection versus Element.
>>
>> We could make it illegal to specify dependent on field types of
>> array, collection, and map...
>>
>>> Or what does it mean if the user specifies 'dependent="false"'
>>> with nested 'element-dependent="true"', or vice-versa?
>>
>> See above.
> JPOX will ignore any "dependent" attribute setting on Collection
> fields, so only the "element-dependent" attribute will be of
> meaning for Collection fields.
>>
>> Experts, any opinion on this subject?
>>
>> Craig
>>>
>>> Thanks for any explanations,
>>> Jörg
>>>
>>> --__________________________________________________________
>>> Dipl.-Inf. Jörg von Frantzius | artnology GmbH
>>> | Milastr. 4
>>> Tel +49 (0)30 4435 099 26 | 10437 Berlin
>>> Fax +49 (0)30 4435 099 99 | http://www.artnology.com
>>> _______________________________|__________________________
>>>
>>
>> Craig Russell
>> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/
>> jdo
>> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
>> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> __________________________________________________________
> Dipl.-Inf. Jörg von Frantzius | artnology GmbH
> | Milastr. 4
> Tel +49 (0)30 4435 099 26 | 10437 Berlin
> Fax +49 (0)30 4435 099 99 | http://www.artnology.com
> _______________________________|__________________________
>
Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Re: Dependent and element-dependent
Posted by Michael Watzek <mw...@spree.de>.
Hi Jörg,
I'm not sure, if the bug is in the area of dependent objects.
The failing configuration is inheritance1 for datastoreidentity. This
configuration executes the completeness test. This test case is
successfully executed by other configuration, e.g. inheritance1 for
applicationidentity, inheritance4 for both identity types, and all
relationship configurations (companyXXX.conf) for both identity types.
I rather think that the problem may be the order of DELETE statements in
the Person hierarchy.
Regards,
Michael
> Please see my comments below on how JPOX will treat dependent vs.
> element-dependent on collection fields. Please reply if you have
> objections!
>
> Craig L Russell schrieb:
>
>> Hi Jörg,
>>
>> On Nov 3, 2005, at 1:49 AM, Jörg von Frantzius wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> the specification currently is somewhat confusing where it defines
>>> the meta-data attributes "dependent" and "element-dependent".
>>> Concerning "dependent" it says:
>>>
>>> "The dependent attribute indicates that the field contains a
>>> reference that is to be deleted
>>
>>
>> The reference is the object that is referenced by the field. I'll try
>> to clarify this in the spec.
>>
>>> from the datastore if the referring instance in which the field is
>>> declared is deleted, or if the
>>> referring field is nullified."
>>>
>>> Now does that mean that really the *reference* is to be deleted
>>> (which seems kinda natural to me), or rather the object being
>>> referred to? Probably the latter?
>>
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>>
>>> For collection fields, there is the additional "dependent-element"
>>> attribute of the "collection" tag. Wouldn't it be enough to have
>>> "dependent" on the field level?
>>
>>
>> We try to make the field metadata refer to behavior of the field
>> itself, and put the behavior of multi-valued field types (array,
>> collection, map) in separate metadata to better match the semantics of
>> Collection versus Element.
>>
>> We could make it illegal to specify dependent on field types of array,
>> collection, and map...
>>
>>> Or what does it mean if the user specifies 'dependent="false"' with
>>> nested 'element-dependent="true"', or vice-versa?
>>
>>
>> See above.
>
> JPOX will ignore any "dependent" attribute setting on Collection fields,
> so only the "element-dependent" attribute will be of meaning for
> Collection fields.
>
>>
>> Experts, any opinion on this subject?
>>
>> Craig
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for any explanations,
>>> Jörg
>>>
>>> --__________________________________________________________
>>> Dipl.-Inf. Jörg von Frantzius | artnology GmbH
>>> | Milastr. 4
>>> Tel +49 (0)30 4435 099 26 | 10437 Berlin
>>> Fax +49 (0)30 4435 099 99 | http://www.artnology.com
>>> _______________________________|__________________________
>>>
>>
>> Craig Russell
>> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
>> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
>> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>>
>>
>
>
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Watzek Tech@Spree Engineering GmbH
mailto:mwa.tech@spree.de Buelowstr. 66
Tel.: ++49/30/235 520 36 10783 Berlin - Germany
Fax.: ++49/30/217 520 12 http://www.spree.de/
-------------------------------------------------------------------