More inline
Quoting David Ezzio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Hi Craig,
Comments inline.
David
-----Original Message-----
From: Craig L Russell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thu 6/8/2006 9:11 PM
To: JDO Expert Group; Apache JDO project
Subject: Behavior of projection queries (long)
Javadogs,
For the JDO maintenance release, we have to decide what the behavior
is for projection queries of various kinds of fields. [There are no
TCK tests for this behavior.] Consider this class:
class Company {
int id;
String symbol;
Date incorporated;
BigDecimal revenues;
Set<Department> departments;
Locale hqLocale;
Integer empCount;
Address hqAddress;
}
and these JDOQL queries:
Collection<DTOCompany> dtos = execute this query: "SELECT new
DTOCompany(symbol, incorporated, revenues, departments, hqLocale,
empCount, hqAddress) FROM Company ORDER BY id"
This query will raise JDOUserException, Collection fields cannot be projected.
Collection<Company> cos = execute this query: "SELECT FROM Company
ORDER BY id"
1. Now, iterate the collections of dtos and cos. For each
corresponding result dto and co in the collection of results:
For each of symbol, incorporated, revenues, departments, hqLocale,
empCount, and hqAddress:
Does dto.symbol == co.symbol?
***
NO
I'm not sure if would be a good idea to take the SCO instance from the FCO or
not. Maybe in pratical terms for users NOT, but logically YES.
Does dto.symbol.equals(co.symbol)?
***
YES
2. Now, suppose I change the mutable second class fields of the
instances I get from cos (the persistent instances).
tx.begin();
cos.incorporated.setTime(new Date().getMillis());
tx.commit();
tx.begin();
cos.departments.add(new Department());
tx.commit();
tx.begin();
cos.hqAddress.setState("CA");
tx.commit();
Have I modified the company instance in the database in any of these
cases?
***
YES
3.Now, suppose I change the mutable second class fields of the
instances I get from dtos (the holders for the field values of the
instances).
tx.begin();
dtos.incorporated.setTime(new Date().getMillis());
tx.commit();
tx.begin();
dtos.departments.add(new Department());
tx.commit();
tx.begin();
dtos.hqAddress.setState("CA");
tx.commit();
***
Maybe, but only if Address is a first class object.
Have I modified the company instance in the database in any of the
cases?
Here's a proposal to clarify the specification.
If mutable second class fields are selected by a projection query,
the instances returned by the query are the instances of the owning
first class instance. Changes made to the results are reflected in
the database at transaction commit. There is no requirement that
immutable fields returned by a projection query are identical to
corresponding fields in cached instances.
The implication is that a projection query that selects mutable
second class fields has the effect of instantiating the owning first
class instance and associating the mutable second class fields in the
query result with the owning first class instance. So selecting first
name, last name, age, and ssn returns only values not associated with
persistent instances. But selecting incorporated, departments, or
hqAddress will instantiate the first class instances and its default
fetch group.
***
I'm sure you have a very good reason in mind. Perhaps I missed it.
I see Craig's point, however as you point below it may be trick for users.
Collections and maps fields cannot be projected, so we have only non set fields
left and allowing them to affect the database would not be much benefit.
One the one side, I fail to see the virtues of this proposal. On the other
side, the whole point of projections is to avoid instantiating first class
objects (although the collections produced may be collections of first class
objects). Likewise, projected values should never be owned by first class
objects.
The proposal adds yet another corner case that will confuse, snare, and
flabbergast application developers.
In my opinion, the rule should always be: projected SCOs are never owned,
projected FCOs are always managed. Modifying unowned SCOs never has an
effect on the database. Modifying FCOs no matter how you get them always has
an effect if the tx commits (except for the well know corner case of
modifying just the unowned side of a bidirectional relationship). That's
what most developers would expect.
***
Craig
Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
_______________________________________________________________________
Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain
information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated
entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or
legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual
or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient,
and have received this message in error, please immediately return this
by email and then delete it.
