How to avoid 'RemovalAwareCollection' in 1:N mappings

[Ge...@lex-com.net]

Hi all,

I can't seem to find a way to control how child objects are treated when 
removed from the collection of a parent object in a 1:N mapping. By 
default OJB (PB API) seems to delete the child object, regardless of the 
auto-upated/delete setting in repository.xml, but there must be a way to 
avoid this. Sometimes, the child object should continue to exist 
independently of the parent.

I looked through some older messages in this mailing list, and it seems to 
me that in earlier OJB versions the opposite was the case: The child 
objects were not deleted when removed from the collection, and the only 
way to make this happen was to explicitly use a RemovalAwareCollection in 
the parent object to hold the child objects. Now it seems that OJB always 
assigns a RemovalAwareCollection to my collection attributes. How can I 
avoid this?

Thanks,
Gerhard Grosse

Re: How to avoid 'RemovalAwareCollection' in 1:N mappings

[jg...@renr.es]

Hi Gerhard

It depens which is the relation 1:n. For example, invoice/lines_invoice, if
an invoice is delete, its lines child must be deleted too. I´ve used the
default collection (RemovalAwareCollection) in that relation (1:N)

In  other relation (person and role) I´ve used M:N relation, because a
person is able to change his role ( simple worker to the boss). I control
the M:N relation programatically to avoid one person has more than one
role. The collection is ManageableVector. I delete only the intermediate
table (PERSON_ROLE),

Jose Galiana

> Hi all,
>
> I can't seem to find a way to control how child objects are treated
> when  removed from the collection of a parent object in a 1:N mapping.
> By  default OJB (PB API) seems to delete the child object, regardless
> of the  auto-upated/delete setting in repository.xml, but there must be
> a way to  avoid this. Sometimes, the child object should continue to
> exist
> independently of the parent.
>
> I looked through some older messages in this mailing list, and it seems
> to  me that in earlier OJB versions the opposite was the case: The
> child  objects were not deleted when removed from the collection, and
> the only  way to make this happen was to explicitly use a
> RemovalAwareCollection in  the parent object to hold the child objects.
> Now it seems that OJB always  assigns a RemovalAwareCollection to my
> collection attributes. How can I  avoid this?
>
> Thanks,
> Gerhard Grosse




---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-user-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-user-help@db.apache.org