Just a note on the completeness of the TCK. There are not many tests that are in place to test the behavior of deleting instances in this particular case (non-cascade, non-dependent, join table for one-many relationship).

We do plan on adding test cases in this general area for the JDO 2.1 Maintenance Release.


On Jul 31, 2007, at 12:51 AM, Andy Jefferson wrote:

That would make sense to me as well. I indeed want
the entries in the PAGE table to remain there. I also thought there
should be no need in the .orm file to specify anything specific (like a cascade delete) in order to have the corresponding entries in BOOK_PAGE being deleted as well, according to the spec. The reason I asked is that
my current jdo vendor requires me to do this and is not convinced the
spec is clear about this.

The (JDO2) spec is clear enough IMHO, and the TCK is there to enforce the spec. Is your current vendor passing the JDO2 TCK? If the vendor is not convinced the spec is clear then they should raise it with the EG, and Apache JDO. If they have an issue with a TCK test then they can raise a CHALLENGE on
the test in question. Very well defined process.

If there is "dependent-element" specified as true on the <collection> then the elements will also be deleted. If not, then it defaults to false and the elements won't be deleted, just removed from the collection (hence any join table entry removed). If it was a FK relation then the FK would be nulled
when dependent-element was false.

Andy  (Java Persistent Objects - http://www.jpox.org)

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!

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Reply via email to