Well, I took a look at implementing such a feature, and it was trivial. It really only hit 2 spots.
Does anyone have any objects to me adding a new access type to the field-descriptor named "anonymous-readonly"? This type responds true for both isReadOnly() and isAnonymous(). If it is ok, the only thing left I will need to do is modify the xdoclet module to be aware of the change. -Andrew > -----Original Message----- > From: Clute, Andrew [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 12:48 PM > To: OJB Developers List > Subject: Read-only Anonymous keys? > > I have a situation where I have an object that is backed by a > view. This view is a composite of a couple tables, however > for this object, only the fields from one particular table > are the ones that need to be updatable. This works ok with > MSSQL as views are able to be updatable as long as you do an > update on columns from one of the tables. > > My issue is that some of the fields of this objects (and that > are part of the table I don't want to update) are FK's to > other objects. I am using anonymous keys to create the > references. However, whenever the update statement is created > for this objects, it adds to the SET clause these columns, > which is a no-no. > > What I would like to do is be able to mark the field as both > anonymous and read-only. I don't want OJB to attempt to > update those columns for that relationship. > > Thoughts? Am I missing something small, or is there some > reason this should never be done? > > -Andrew > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
