Hello,
How do I set up optimistic locking when I am mapping classes on
multiple joined tables? The documentation examples on multiple joined
fields, use a class B that extends class A. I'm not sure if the
version_maintained_by_ojb should be mapped to a field in the table for
the super class A or the table for class B or both. If on both tables
do the mutators need to be named differently? Should the values be kept
synchronized? I'm confused and am getting optimistic locking exceptions
spuriously.
Thanks For Any Guidance. :)
Ryan Harris.
public class A
{
// primary key
int id;
// mapped to a column in A_TABLE
int someValueFromA;
//mapped to a column in A_TABLE
Integer versionMaintainedByOjb;
}
public class B extends A
{
// id is primary key and serves also as foreign key referencing A.id
int id;
// mapped to a column in B_TABLE
int someValueFromB;
// mapped to a column in B_TABLE
Integer versionMaintainedByOjb;
}
I currently have both set with the same name, but have been noticing
that when I get and then update a super class (class A), the version
increments on the A class as expected. But when I open a B class that
extends the same A-class, the version on the B class table no longer
matches the version on the A class.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
