Hello,
Two colleagues of mine encountered a scenario which seems to indicate
the presence of a bug in OJB :( Not sure it's relevante but we're using
OJB 1.0.
To illustrate our scenario we'll use similar examples to the ones
provided the OJB guides. Let's assume the following mapping (and implied
classes):
<class-descriptor class="AB">
<extent-class class-ref="A" />
<extent-class class-ref="B" />
</class-descriptor>
<class-descriptor
class="A"
table="AB_TABLE"
>
<field-descriptor
name="id"
column="ID"
jdbc-type="INTEGER"
primarykey="true"
autoincrement="true"
/>
<field-descriptor
name="ackOptLock"
column="ACK_OPT_LOCK"
jdbc-type="INTEGER"
locking="true"
/>
<field-descriptor
name="ojbConcreteClass"
column="CLASS_NAME"
jdbc-type="VARCHAR"
/>
<field-descriptor
name="someValue"
column="VALUE_"
jdbc-type="INTEGER"
conversion="OurSomeValueConversionClass"
/>
</class-descriptor>
<class-descriptor
class="B"
table="AB_TABLE"
>
<field-descriptor
name="id"
column="ID"
jdbc-type="INTEGER"
primarykey="true"
autoincrement="true"
/>
<field-descriptor
name="ackOptLock"
column="ACK_OPT_LOCK"
jdbc-type="INTEGER"
locking="true"
/>
<field-descriptor
name="ojbConcreteClass"
column="CLASS_NAME"
jdbc-type="VARCHAR"
/>
<field-descriptor
name="someOtherValue"
column="OTHER_VALUE_"
jdbc-type="VARCHAR"
/>
</class-descriptor>
Querying objects of class A works fine. The problems we encountered
surfaced when attempting queries on class AB (I think the same occurs
for operations on class B). All queries run the conversion methods from
"OurSomeValueConversionClass", even when the AB_TABLE only contains B
concrete classes! Is this behavior normal/expected? Are we missing the
point? Or is this actually a bug in OJB?
Thanks in advance,
Luis Cruz
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
