Re: non-equal Identities for primary-key fields with FieldConvers ion

[Jakob Braeuchi]

hi oli, ludovic,
sorry, i missed this post.
as oli mentioned, we need at least two field-conversions. this is true for 
single-field-pks. imo we need one fc for _each_ field participating in the 
relationship.

jakob
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
Hello Ludovic,
(I guess there are some accents missing on your name - sorry for that),
thank you for your quick answer.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ludovic Maitre (POP - Factory Part)

I have found a way to workaround the problem without modifying the code.
However, that workaround does not work for OJB 1.0.0, but it works
for builds younger than 3 weeks or so: I you my own IdentityFactory,
which extens IdentityFactoryImpl and invokes the correct FieldConversion.
Of course, a fix is nevertheless desireable.  See my comments below.

   protected void associateBatched(Collection owners, Collection 
children, Collection mToNImplementors)
   {
       //LMA: Use a field conversion if necessary
       //[Solve the potential problem described above]
       FieldConversion fc = 
cds.getClassDescriptor().getPrimaryKey().getFieldConversion();

here, you need at at least two FieldConversions, say:
fc[0] = getOwnerClassDescriptor().getPrimaryKey().getFieldConversion();
fc[1] = getItemClassDescriptor().getPrimaryKey().getFieldConversion();
In case of composed primary keys, you need an array
FieldConversion[] fc of size ownerPkLen + childPkLen
where the latter are as below
[..]

       int ownerPkLen = 
getOwnerClassDescriptor().getPkFields().length;
       int childPkLen = 
getItemClassDescriptor().getPkFields().length;

           //LMA: Use the field conversion if it exist. We 
assume that 
the pk of the 2 objects are of the same type.

dangerous assumption (but true for my project, too)

           //[solve the potential problem described by BRJ]
           if (fc!=null)
                   for (int i=0;i<mToN.length;i++)
                       mToN[i]=fc.sqlToJava(mToN[i]);

here, you would need fc[i] rather than that single fc, am I right?
Hm.  I wonder whether I should apply that change ...
Olli
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]