[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[List Home]
|
Re: [eclipselink-users] Insertable=false only being respected if updated=false also present
|
- From: "Tim Hollosy" <hollosyt@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 09:44:05 -0400
- Delivered-to: eclipselink-users@eclipse.org
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=5PsjhwlkYR5ahvVwLXHEfBQYHx2fEf7l5NkJxGtt+hQ=; b=H1tlfMh09nnf4XNDSiimtWTq8Q132M7aLlCTcPaxmdKQO2IDPqbiByroDVtOQT1Oad N1VfojCipW1P4gjkOL/luelYe/g7yGCiKnLRuyxCwGNVGZLV9N5PWWGQkRORWN71KhMV j5Ua6xYiznSALOlRVbej3+gtBDfEq2FMvlM+U=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=netW3ekh/kis9i0Z2PgzGUJmQ3LifQRTeVbXbS1uuCRpD89zhRaAze5pT+pVRKH6Ie 38arfdKdy9iWd8fiU0MTqo2sil67GDBvYiG3fuF4L9f6wRSdgFHXvxbnAsrRdkeQBO6w 5BoM8+Qj/yHls8AHfzK1Tw1YnxDBJpr/3InC0=
The default values I'm using are special to the DB vendor, so they
have to be set on the DB side. I think I'll file a bug, since it seems
like it should work either-or by my reading of the JPA spec.
Thanks for the reply.
./tch
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 9:31 AM, James Sutherland <jamesssss@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> This is true, EclipseLink only has a read-only setting, which both setting
> map to. If you do not wish to insert the field because you are defaulting
> in the database, you may wish to look into the ReturningPolicy or instead
> default the attribute value in Java.
>
> Feel free to log the bug though.
>
>
>
> Tim Hollosy wrote:
>>
>> I need a sanity check. I've run into a problem recently on two
>> different entities where in my @Column annotation insertable=false is
>> ignored and the column included in an insert statement unless
>> updateable=false is also included in the annotation.
>>
>> This is the first time I've tried insertable=false by itself. Am I
>> missing something here? I create my entity, call persist on it, then
>> commit. This seems a bit too major of a bug to still be around, so I'm
>> thinking I must have a misconception somewhere.
>>
>> Perhaps I have some misconception about these attributes, could but
>> they seemed pretty straight forward to me. Any ideas before I file a
>> bug report? (I'm on 1.0 osgi branch)
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Tim
>>
>
>
> -----
> ---
> http://wiki.eclipse.org/User:James.sutherland.oracle.com James Sutherland
> http://www.eclipse.org/eclipselink/
> EclipseLink , http://www.oracle.com/technology/products/ias/toplink/
> TopLink
> Wiki: http://wiki.eclipse.org/EclipseLink EclipseLink ,
> http://wiki.oracle.com/page/TopLink TopLink
> Forums: http://forums.oracle.com/forums/forum.jspa?forumID=48 TopLink ,
> http://www.nabble.com/EclipseLink-f26430.html EclipseLink
> Book: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Java_Persistence Java Persistence
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Insertable%3Dfalse-only-being-respected-if-updated%3Dfalse-also-present-tp18832156p18851250.html
> Sent from the EclipseLink - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> _______________________________________________
> eclipselink-users mailing list
> eclipselink-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipselink-users
>