Hi, I tested your suggestion after incrementing all indexes by one everything worked fine. Maybe that it would be a good idea that OJB throws an exeption for wrong ID's. The simple load of one class worked fine, only the 1:1 association were null. No error were reported during load.
However. 1:1 is working now. Thanks to you and of course to Thomas who always makes great support for us. best regards, Guido ----- Original Message ----- From: "Olaf Geibig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "OJB Users List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 11:16 AM Subject: Re: [General] Field Ids (was: OJB problems with JDO 1:1 mapping) > 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]> > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
