David Corbin wrote: > Chris Lewington wrote: > >> Hi Guido, >> >> One thing I noticed is that your field IDs start at 0. This may not be a >> problem but is a simple thing to try and change. I had problems with >> field >> IDs when I had a gap in the sequence due to edits, eg I removed field >> 4 and >> the progression went from 3 to 5. This threw >> ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsExceptions, >> so it seems OJB is fairly sensitive to the field IDs. Worth a shot. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Chris >> >> > > Yes, it is. Can anyone offer an explanation for why this is so? > Personally, I think the id should meaningful symbols, not indexes. > > David
I had the same problem that I started my id's at 0 and in a debugger session I found out that there was the wrong object retrieved as there should be according to the relation. I think OJB is really using the id's as an index to some collection or whatever. I think this should be mentioned in the docs. I just got the idea that my id's are wrong when I noticed that in the examples they always start at 1. /olaf -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
