Hi Steve,
Steve Clark wrote:
I'm wondering if the listed KNOWN ISSUES will be resolved for 1.0?
We try to list all unsolved major issues for 1.0 (we are open source, thus there is no reason for keep quiet about known issue).
We will try to fix these problems ASAP in a 1.0x release.
It sounds like not, and at least one of them worries me.
Brian> - odmg-api: It is not possible to exchange objects in 1:n Brian> references.
I'm not sure what this means. Is it a new problem?
No, sorry my bad english. Will try to explain. Say A has a 1:n relation to B. The status of the locked referenced objects (B's) of A currently noticed only by the size of the collection. If you now remove one B object and add another already existing (and locked) B object the size of the referenced collection doesn't change and the A object doesn't get dirty and the FK in B wasn't changed.
Only in this case the bug arise.
Brian> - odmg-api: Creation of m:n relation only works when Brian> objects created Brian> step by step (or use PB-api as workaround), persist a whole Brian> object graph doesn't work. On delete of collection objects Brian> from a m:n relation objects will be deleted from the Brian> indirection table and (unexpected behaviour) from the Brian> referenced table too.
This sounds very big and also sounds new to me.
> I've been persisting > object graphs in ODMG without problems.
I don't think it's new, we only don't have an test case for this problem till now (this issue is only based on m:n relations).
Also unsure about the deletion piece: Does this mean that auto-delete="link" doesn't work with ODMG any more (it's been working ok in RC6)?
hmm, at all times the top-level api need the default values for auto-xxx settings:
auto-retrieve true
auto-update false auto-delete false
But except for auto-delete on 1:1 relation, 'false' is equals with 'link'.
regards, Armin
thanks,
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
