You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to ojb-dev@db.apache.org by Joerg Heinicke <jo...@gmx.de> on 2004/05/19 03:31:35 UTC
double references to one object (was: [OTM] bug with most simple
use case)
On 18.05.2004 21:20, Oleg Nitz wrote:
>>the test !newAddresses.contains(oldAddress) always returns false. OJB
>>handles it internally so that no db access will be done if not
>>necessary, i.e. if the "same" elements (in OJB sense, but different in
>>Java sense) will be readded in the same tx.
>>
>>But the behaviour is a bit strange. Is this by
>>intention/design/implementation?
>
> All of the above :)
> Very simple: object identity uniquely identifies the object.
> AFAIK Sun JDO spec also treats object identity in similar way,
> which differs from the way of standard Java APIs.
Ok, sounds logical :)
I found today another buggy behaviour, but have not look deeply enough
into it, what more or less means I have no test case until now.
Just to give the idea: I have a legalcase and a depending collection of
events (as history). Some of those events have again a depending
collection of objects (here: payment by installment, installment rates).
As long as the event collection is valid (here: no other event occured
changing the payment method) the collection is also referenced on the
legalcase directly. But if the payment method changes the collection on
the legalcase will be set to null. Unfortunately a
makePersistent(legalcase) does not cut the reference from each
installment rate to the legalcase. After a server restart the legalcase
object will be restored with the installment rates collection though it
was set to null before.
installment rate table:
id | period | amount | eventId | legalcaseId
1 | 30 | 100 | 1 | 1
2 | 60 | 100 | 1 | 1
3 | 90 | 100 | 1 | 1
After setting installment rate collection to null on the legalcase and
makePersistent() the legalcaseId should be 0.
IIRC I already had a similar issue some time ago. At that time I removed
this double reference as it was more disturbing than helpful from the
application POV, but here it is more than just helpful. Is this
requirement to pretentiously?
Joerg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org