Brian McCallister <mccallister <at> forthillcompany.com> writes:
> Are you using an instance of the object obtained during a different
> transaction?
>
> for instance:
>
> public void testRemoveChildren()
> {
[ ... store objects ... ]
> Transaction tx = kit.getTransaction(otmConnection);
> tx.begin();
> parent.removeChild(child2);
> tx.commit();
[ ... asserts ... ]
> }
>
> Will fail
>
> public void testRemoveChildren()
> {
[ ... store objects ... ]
> Transaction tx = kit.getTransaction(otmConnection);
> tx.begin();
> parent = (Parent)
> otmConnection.getObjectByIdentity(otmConnection.getIdentity(parent));
> child2 = (Child)
> otmConnection.getObjectByIdentity(otmConnection.getIdentity(child2));
> parent.removeChild(child2);
> tx.commit();
[ ... asserts ... ]
> }
>
> Will pass. The objects need to be bound to the current tx.
>
> where store begins a transaction, stores, and then commits the
> transaction.
>
> -Brian
Hello Brian,
I don't know if I understand you correctly as the above seems to be
contradicting to Oleg's patches. The recent version of DependentTests reflects
my wishes at best I guess [1]. I want to modify the objects outside of any
transaction (Cocoon Forms/Woody does it for me) and make the changes persistent
afterwards (the obects are given back to the data access layer). Of course it's
possible that I need better identity handling to delete/update correctly my
objects and its dependencies in my application. For that reason I used the OJB
tests to show the effects I have and until now I could reproduce my problems
there. If you think the current version of DependentTests is invalid please tell
me - maybe Oleg has already to much fixed then.
Joerg
[1] http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/db-ojb/src/test/org/apache/ojb/otm/
DependentTests.java?rev=1.4&view=markup
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
