Hi,

OPENJPA-435 discusses changing the default foreign key behavior to assume RESTRICT constraints on all foreign keys. This is different than OpenJPA's current behavior, which assumes no foreign keys by default.

I think that we should change this default in OpenJPA 1.1.0, and include a new Compatibility flag to turn on the old behavior. Thoughts?

-Patrick

On Nov 6, 2007, at 9:38 PM, Prashant Bhat (JIRA) wrote:


[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OPENJPA-435?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel #action_12540672 ]

Prashant Bhat commented on OPENJPA-435:
---------------------------------------

I'm using the first option for mapping tool and also during entityManagerFactory creation:
<property name="openjpa.jdbc.MappingDefaults"
value="ForeignKeyDeleteAction=restrict, JoinForeignKeyDeleteAction=restrict"/>

And for me it's working perfectly with all constraints and I agree that changing the default behaviour to this makes it a lot easier for beginners(as I had the same issue and the manual was not very clear for me then! May be it's updated now)

Regards,
Prashant


Change mapping defaults to assume foreign keys exist for relationships by default
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

               Key: OPENJPA-435
               URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OPENJPA-435
           Project: OpenJPA
        Issue Type: Improvement
        Components: sql
  Affects Versions: 0.9.0, 0.9.6, 0.9.7, 1.0.0, 1.0.1, 1.0.2, 1.1.0
          Reporter: Patrick Linskey
           Fix For: 1.1.0


OpenJPA's current defaults assume that no foreign keys exist. This leads to potentially more optimal SQL ordering, but often also leads to FK constraint violations when obvious FKs exist but are not declared. We should change this default to be more user- friendly, and add a note to our optimization guide as appropriate if there are actions users should take to optimize.

--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.


--
Patrick Linskey
202 669 5907




Reply via email to