Rick, thanks for pointing out. I will check this too. But regardless of the outcome, i think we will recode the stuff which is affected, because its better coding style to load related entities and point the managed entities to the desired other entities. This way people know whats going on without relying on any ORM magic.
2014-06-02 18:26 GMT+02:00 Rick Curtis <curti...@gmail.com>: > Marc -- > > I'm thinking that there was a change in cascade persist behavior that you > might be running into. > > > http://openjpa.apache.org/builds/2.2.2/apache-openjpa/docs/jpa_2.2.html#jpa_2.2_cascadePersist > > > On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Marc Logemann <marc.logem...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Kevin, > > > > thanks for fast feedback. To your questions: > > > > 1) of course we could do the em.find() and do it the way it should be > done > > ;-) > > > > 2) no, we have not tried using em.merge(), this would be an option we > could > > check out. > > > > And yes. WE dont want to persist the CustomerType since its already > there. > > We just want to create the relationship. > > > > Thanks again. And now we will happily wait for Java8 Support in your > > bytecode enhancer so that we could upgrade to latest Version of OpenJPA > > instead of being stuck to 2.2.0 ;-) > > > > Marc > > > > > > 2014-06-02 16:11 GMT+02:00 Kevin Sutter <kwsut...@gmail.com>: > > > > > Hi Marc, > > > Sorry for the troubles. Technically, it looks like you were lucky and > > > coding to a bug in the OpenJPA code. Since you just created this > > > CustomerType, we have to assume that it's unmanaged. And, we can't > > > automatically cascade the persist operation to this unmanaged entity. > > And, > > > in your particular case, we wouldn't want to persist this entity since > it > > > already exists. > > > > > > Just to be clear, you don't want this CustomerType to be persisted, > > right? > > > You are just creating this to satisfy the relationship from Person, > > right? > > > > > > A couple of ideas come to mind... > > > > > > 1) Can you do an em.find() operation on your CustomerType? I realize > > this > > > is an extra SQL, but then this CustomerType would be managed and > satisfy > > > the requirement. > > > > > > 2) Have you tried using em.merge(p) instead of em.persist(p)? The > merge > > > should do either the update or insert based on the state of the object. > > > When we get to the CustomerType, we might have to do the extra SQL to > > > determine if it exists already, but then we should be okay. This JIRA > > [1] > > > from the 2.2.0 Release Notes [2] makes me think this might work... > > > > > > Maybe somebody else has some ideas on how to get around this scenario. > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OPENJPA-1896 > > > [2] > > > > http://openjpa.apache.org/builds/2.2.0/apache-openjpa/RELEASE-NOTES.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 7:48 AM, Marc Logemann <marc.logem...@gmail.com > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hey, > > > > > > > > we recently switched to 2.2.0 (cant go higher because we use Java8) > and > > > we > > > > found a change in behavior. > > > > > > > > Asumme we created a new Entity which looks like this: > > > > > > > > Person.java > > > > ------------------ > > > > int oid > > > > String name > > > > CustomerType adress > > > > > > > > > > > > we created the object like so: > > > > > > > > Person p = new Person(); > > > > p.setName("foo); > > > > > > > > CustomerType ct = new CustomerType(); > > > > ct.setOid(1); // THIS OID already exists and we want to map the > > existant > > > > object to Person > > > > > > > > p.setCustomerType(ct); > > > > > > > > persist(p); > > > > > > > > > > > > ===== > > > > > > > > In 2.1.0 OpemJPA knew that there is a CustomerType in the DB with > this > > > oid > > > > and loads it automaticly and the child object is "managed". With > 2.2.0 > > > this > > > > is no longer the case and we get a "Unmanaged bla bla bla Exception". > > We > > > > relied on that behavior heavily and the rewrite is a tough for all > > areas. > > > > Is there some kind of config setting where i can set the "old > > behavior". > > > Or > > > > was this old behavior a bug? ;-) > > > > > > > > Thanks for hints. > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > *Rick Curtis* >
