Re: Delete by query

[Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>]

Just a note on the completeness of the TCK. There are not many tests  
that are in place to test the behavior of deleting instances in this  
particular case (non-cascade, non-dependent, join table for one-many  
relationship).

We do plan on adding test cases in this general area for the JDO 2.1  
Maintenance Release.

Craig

On Jul 31, 2007, at 12:51 AM, Andy Jefferson wrote:

>> That would make sense to me as well. I indeed want
>> the entries in the PAGE table to remain there. I also thought there
>> should be no need in the .orm file to specify anything specific  
>> (like a
>> cascade delete) in order to have the corresponding entries in  
>> BOOK_PAGE
>> being deleted as well, according to the spec. The reason I asked  
>> is that
>> my current jdo vendor requires me to do this and is not convinced the
>> spec is clear about this.
>
> The (JDO2) spec is clear enough IMHO, and the TCK is there to  
> enforce the
> spec. Is your current vendor passing the JDO2 TCK? If the vendor is  
> not
> convinced the spec is clear then they should raise it with the EG,  
> and Apache
> JDO. If they have an issue with a TCK test then they can raise a  
> CHALLENGE on
> the test in question. Very well defined process.
>
>
> If there is "dependent-element" specified as true on the  
> <collection> then the
> elements will also be deleted. If not, then it defaults to false  
> and the
> elements won't be deleted, just removed from the collection (hence  
> any join
> table entry removed). If it was a FK relation then the FK would be  
> nulled
> when dependent-element was false.
>
>
> HTH
> -- 
> Andy  (Java Persistent Objects - http://www.jpox.org)

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!