Re: Interesting (failing) scenario of FKs/PKs in PB

Jakob Braeuchi Thu, 13 Mar 2003 09:27:28 -0800

hi all,

i fixed this problem by assigning the foreign keys when the first check fails. after this assignement i do another check which MUST be successful otherwise an PersistenceBrokerException is thrown. so it no longer dies silently.

the reason i do this two step approach is that i'm not sure whether it's ALWAYS safe to to the foreign key assignement before the check.

hth
jakob

Armin Waibel wrote:

----- Original Message -----
From: "V.B. Skrypnyk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "OJB Users List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Armin Waibel"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 11:01 PM
Subject: Re: Interesting (failing) scenario of FKs/PKs in PB
Interestingly it fails silently, because after the assertion of

primary keys

the storeToDb() simply returns. Maybe foreign references should be

expanded

before the primary keys are asserted...
sounds good (means I don't have a clue ;-)).
This part of OJB is definitely not my special subject.
If you find a solution I will check in your code.
Test is in, let the gurus make the work ;-)
regards,
Armin
--Bill.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Armin Waibel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "OJB Users List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 1:49 PM
Subject: Re: Interesting (failing) scenario of FKs/PKs in PB
The test fails because after commit none object
was persisted to database.
regards,
Armin
----- Original Message -----
From: "V.B. Skrypnyk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "OJB Users List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Armin Waibel"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 10:37 PM
Subject: Re: Interesting (failing) scenario of FKs/PKs in PB
Hi Armin,

I can only see 2 slight variances from my case: 1. My class doesn't have an autoincrement primary key 2. The reference is set from an object that already exists (it's
not

saved

in the same transaction)

I don't know if these variances are material. Does the test pass?

(I
can't
seem to compile the
project, there seem to be some problems with the StatementManager)
--Bill.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Armin Waibel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "OJB Users List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 10:46 AM
Subject: Re: Interesting (failing) scenario of FKs/PKs in PB
Hi Christian, Bill
I currently add a new test case to demonstrate
the described behaviour.
Could you check if I hit the bull's eye.
See ReferenceTest#testRepositoryFKStore
regards,
Armin
----- Original Message -----
From: "Malinescu, Cristian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'OJB Users List'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 6:15 PM
Subject: RE: Interesting (failing) scenario of FKs/PKs in PB
Hi Yes, I succeeded to this behaviour but only for Oracle, for
MySQL

was

going OK, and for my typical situation I needed only one PK, no FK. This was strange for me, and I posted one email on this theme

last
week,
but
till
now no remark/comment. I'm using the PB basic API.
regards,
Cristian
-----Original Message-----
From: V.B. Skrypnyk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Mittwoch, 12. M�rz 2003 18:02
To: OJB Users List
Subject: Re: Interesting (failing) scenario of FKs/PKs in PB
Has anyone else encountered this problem?

--Bill.

Hi,

The following fails to be stored by PersistenceBroker:

I have a class ACL which has two primary keys: objectId and
userFK,

and

userFK is also a foreign key tied to a reference of type User.
If
I do
this:
persistentBroker.beginTransaction();
ACL acl = new ACL();
acl.setObjectId( 100 );
acl.setUser( currentUser );
persistentBroker.store(acl);
persistentBroker.commitTransaction();
Acl will not be saved. The reason seems to be because in the
storeToDb()

method of the PersistentBroker, there first comes an assertion
of

the

PrimaryKeys and afterwards comes the assignment of all the

foreign

keys. In

the scenario above the assertion of the primary keys will

fail,

because the

userFK has not been assigned yet, so we have an incomplete set

of

primary

keys. This does work with the ODMG layer, probably because of

a

different

sequence of events during the storing of the object.

I wonder if there should be a check whether a primary key is

shared by

the

foreign key and allow that assignment before the assertion of

the
primary
keys is performed. Any ideas?
Cheers,
--Bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Interesting (failing) scenario of FKs/PKs in PB

Reply via email to