Rick: First of all, thank you very much for the quick response and definitive answer.
Am I right is assuming that null values should be copies on merge? I've reviewed the JPA 2.0 specification. I see that 3.2.7.1 does not disadvantage null values > If X is a detached entity, the state of X is copied onto a pre-existing > managed entity instance X' of the same identity or a new managed copy X' of X > is created. but note that 3.2.7.2 leaves some wiggle room for implementations supporting lazy loading. I'm happy to file the report if this is a bug. I see that FetchType.EAGER is already specified (by default), so lazy loading is already turned off for the field in question. Do I understand that (post-merge), setting the value to null should cause the value to be persisted? Thanks. -=- Jerry On Feb 4, 2011, at 1:56 PM, Rick Curtis [via OpenJPA] wrote: > Jerry - > > That would be the problem then. We lost track of the fact that you set this > field to null, and assume that it wasn't loaded. Please review the > openjpa.DetachState [1] docs for more info. You could set the property > listed below so that we will stream our DetachedStateManager around. > > <property name="openjpa.DetachState" > value="fetch-groups(DetachedStateField=true)"/> > > [1] > http://openjpa.apache.org/builds/latest/docs/manual/manual.html#ref_guide_detach_graph > > Thanks, > Rick > > On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 12:49 PM, No1UNo <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > > Yes, it is. The object is changed remotely and then merged. The data on > > the wire is fine. > > > > On Feb 4, 2011, at 1:47 PM, Rick Curtis [via OpenJPA] wrote: > > > > > Jerry - > > > > > > Is the Entity which you are trying to update being > > serialized/deserialized? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Rick > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Jerry Carter <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > > > > Using OpenJPA 2.0.1, I have a date field in my entity. Setting the > > field > > > > to a non-null value causes the data to be persisted as one would > > expect. > > > > Setting the value to null, however, does not trigger an UPDATE > > operation. > > > > I'm still digging, but I'm sure that someone else has encountered > > this. > > > > > > > > FWIW, the annotations for the field are simple: > > > > > > > > @Temporal(TemporalType.DATE) > > > > @Column(name="purchase_date" private Date purchaseDate; > > > > > > > > I do not specify 'nullable', but it defaults to true and the field > > supports > > > > a NULL value in the database. > > > > > > > > -=- Jerry > > > > > If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion > below: > http://openjpa.208410.n2.nabble.com/Null-field-not-persisted-for-Dates-tp5993519p5993617.html > To start a new topic under OpenJPA Users, email > ml-node+208411-1703014788-244...@n2.nabble.com > To unsubscribe from OpenJPA Users, click here. -- View this message in context: http://openjpa.208410.n2.nabble.com/Null-field-not-persisted-for-Dates-tp5993519p5993681.html Sent from the OpenJPA Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
