Hi Gerhard It depens which is the relation 1:n. For example, invoice/lines_invoice, if an invoice is delete, its lines child must be deleted too. I�ve used the default collection (RemovalAwareCollection) in that relation (1:N)
In other relation (person and role) I�ve used M:N relation, because a person is able to change his role ( simple worker to the boss). I control the M:N relation programatically to avoid one person has more than one role. The collection is ManageableVector. I delete only the intermediate table (PERSON_ROLE), Jose Galiana > Hi all, > > I can't seem to find a way to control how child objects are treated > when removed from the collection of a parent object in a 1:N mapping. > By default OJB (PB API) seems to delete the child object, regardless > of the auto-upated/delete setting in repository.xml, but there must be > a way to avoid this. Sometimes, the child object should continue to > exist > independently of the parent. > > I looked through some older messages in this mailing list, and it seems > to me that in earlier OJB versions the opposite was the case: The > child objects were not deleted when removed from the collection, and > the only way to make this happen was to explicitly use a > RemovalAwareCollection in the parent object to hold the child objects. > Now it seems that OJB always assigns a RemovalAwareCollection to my > collection attributes. How can I avoid this? > > Thanks, > Gerhard Grosse --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
