I know I'm stating the obvious, but there's nothing wrong with us pushing
out a 3.0M4.  This would have the benefit of working for everyone, rather
than just those that happened to see your post.

While not a ton has changed, there were some fairly important bug fixes.  I
think CAY-574, for example, could help out a lot of ROP users.

-- 
Kevin

On 2/12/08 12:05 PM, "Andrus Adamchik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> FYI: I just fixed a nasty Modeler bug below that affected
> CayenneModeler 3.0M3. You can get a Mac and Windows versions of the
> patched Modeler following this link (consider it an unofficial nightly
> build) :
> 
>    http://people.apache.org/~aadamchik/nightly/02122008/
> 
> Andrus
> 
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
>> From: "Andrus Adamchik (JIRA)" <[email protected]>
>> Date: February 12, 2008 11:27:33 AM EST
>> To: [email protected]
>> Subject: [JIRA] Created: (CAY-984) Runtime relationships leak into
>> CayenneModeler
>> Reply-To: [email protected]
>> 
>> Runtime relationships leak into CayenneModeler
>> ----------------------------------------------
>> 
>>                 Key: CAY-984
>>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/cayenne/browse/CAY-984
>>             Project: Cayenne
>>          Issue Type: Bug
>>          Components: CayenneModeler GUI
>>    Affects Versions: 3.0
>>            Reporter: Andrus Adamchik
>>            Assignee: Andrus Adamchik
>>            Priority: Critical
>>             Fix For: 3.0
>> 
>> 
>> This affects 3.0 M3 and causes lots of user confusion and potential
>> modeling errors.... In *runtime* Cayenne creates missing reverse
>> relationships to have a consistent mapping graph internally. This
>> should be invisible to the Modeler... however it is not, as when a
>> project is loaded, the "defaults" are applied and runtime
>> relationships are shown to the user. Luckily they are not saved to
>> XML , but the whole things is very confusing.
>> 
>> -- 
>> This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
>> -
>> You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
>> 
>> 
> 

Reply via email to