Marc,
I have several relationships that have the same target.
(table names and relationships follow)
class -(M-1)- xClassAttrib -(1-1)- attrib
component -(M-1)- xCompAttrib -(1-1)- attrib
Both of these end up at the same attrib table.
Could this be a problem?
I added some other 1-M
I have been working with the validate tool and was getting an exception on
classes that used @table(name=XXX, schema=YYY). If I took out the schema
portion the exception went away. I see no mention of not using schema in @table
for validate use. Is this a bug or undocumented feature
The mapping
Phill-
It sounds like a bug, but it would help to know what the exception
was :)
On Apr 23, 2007, at 7:02 AM, Phill Moran wrote:
I have been working with the validate tool and was getting an
exception on
classes that used @table(name=XXX, schema=YYY). If I took out
the schema
portion
OpenJPA has done a great job of forming a diverse community around a
great code base whose IP has been reviewed and approved for release,
and we're now a well-functioning, project in the incubator. So we are
now at the stage when we should think about when and how to leave the
incubator
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OPENJPA-219?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12491077
]
Bret Weinraub commented on OPENJPA-219:
---
I developed a patch version that cached both success and failure
I'm personally rather neutral on whether OpenJPA should be a TLP vs.
a sub-project. TLP seems like it allows us more flexibility and
independence, so by default I would lean towards being a TLP.
However, I do notice that the DB TLP already holds other similar
projects (Torque, OJB, and
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OPENJPA-219?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12491078
]
Bret Weinraub commented on OPENJPA-219:
---
I will add the Cache v2 version here shortly.
Reflection: negative
Derby provides a nice out of the box experience, so I vote to keep it with
our set of required runtime libraries.
On 4/18/07, Michael Dick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In general I agree with Patrick. I'm +0 regarding including Derby, it's
nice
for the examples, but it just doesn't seem right to
I agree that it's nice to have an out-of-the-box database shipped
with our distribution.
Once Java SE 6 is universal, we can revisit the decision, since Java
SE 6 distributes Java DB (a renamed Derby distribution).
Craig
On Apr 23, 2007, at 3:03 PM, Kevin Sutter wrote:
Derby provides a
I can toggle this exception on/off by adding the schema statement. I was running
validate on my country class that persists to the country table on a
table-per-class inheritance strategy. Using 0.9.6 openJPA
16 TRACE [main] openjpa.Runtime - Setting the following properties from
On Apr 23, 2007, at 2:58 PM, Marc Prud'hommeaux wrote:
I'm personally rather neutral on whether OpenJPA should be a TLP
vs. a sub-project. TLP seems like it allows us more flexibility and
independence, so by default I would lean towards being a TLP.
That's my main concern as well.
I think that I'm about +0.5 for TLP graduation. It seems to make more
sense, and from what I understand, there is only a minimal amount of
additional work involved. As the +0.5 indicates, I could be swayed the
other direction though.
-Patrick
--
Patrick Linskey
BEA Systems, Inc.
Here is a scenario that shows odd behaviour, I want to see if it is expected or
not. The docs are not clear on it
If I have a many to one relationship for objects Store to Store Type and I
create a new Store and assign it to an existing Store type does this
relationship have to have
13 matches
Mail list logo
