Re: Hierarchical relationship problems

From: Filip Balas (fbala..mail.com)
Date: Wed Apr 27 2005 - 18:44:26 EDT

  • Next message: Mikaël Cluseau: "Saving a single object"

    Hi Andrus,

    Here is what I'm working with:

    <obj-relationship name="children" source="Location" target="Location"
    deleteRule="Cascade" db-relationship-path="rel_children"/>

    <obj-relationship name="parent" source="Location" target="Location"
    db-relationship-path="rel_parent"/>

    <db-relationship name="rel_children" source="IMV_locations"
    target="IMV_locations" toMany="true">
         <db-attribute-pair source="id" target="parent_id"/>
    </db-relationship>

    <db-relationship name="rel_parent" source="IMV_locations"
    target="IMV_locations" toDependentPK="true" toMany="false">
         <db-attribute-pair source="parent_id" target="id"/>
    </db-relationship>

    <obj-entity name="Location"
    className="com.imvprojects.phoneList.data.Location"
    dbEntityName="IMV_locations">
         <obj-attribute name="_description" type="java.lang.String"
    db-attribute-path="description"/>
    </obj-entity>

    <db-entity name="IMV_locations" schema="dbo" catalog="GPSForecast">
            <db-attribute name="description" type="VARCHAR" length="75"/>
            <db-attribute name="id" type="INTEGER" isPrimaryKey="true"
    isMandatory="true" isGenerated="true" length="10"/>
            <db-attribute name="parent_id" type="INTEGER" length="10"/>
    </db-entity>

    I'm not sure what you mean by flattened relationships?
    Do you mean the fact that I am using only one table to
    represent the relationship? Should I be breaking this out?
    I have another relationship where I have a 1:n relationship
    which I have represented in a seperate table (for reasons
    which are not relevent to the discussion) and this class
    has all of the appropriate accessors.

    Thanks,
    Filip

    On 4/27/05, Andrus Adamchik <andru..bjectstyle.org> wrote:
    > Doublecheck that you cleared those bogus flattened relationships.
    >
    > Read-only relationships are usually generated for all flattened
    > relationships that Cayenne treats are non-updateable (i.e. all except m:n
    > with a single join table). I suspect this is the cause of the problem.
    >
    > Andrus
    >
    >
    > > I didn't notice this before but it appears cayenne
    > > did not generate modifiers for the hierarchical class?
    > >
    > > What I mean is this:
    > >
    > > I HAVE:
    > > Location getParent()
    > > List getChildren();
    > >
    > > I am MISSING:
    > > setParent(Location)
    > > addToChildren(Location)
    > > removeFromChildren(Location)
    > >
    > > I have checked to make sure I didn't inadvertantly
    > > make the entity read-only. Any suggestions?
    > >
    > > Thanks,
    > > Filip
    > >
    > >
    > > On 4/25/05, Filip Balas <fbala..mail.com> wrote:
    > >> Just a quick update so that no one wastes anymore
    > >> time on this other than me. It appears that with the
    > >> clean test, cayenne handles everything just fine.
    > >>
    > >> There must be something else in how I've used the
    > >> modeler or set up the relationships in the database
    > >> that is causing this to happen.
    > >>
    > >> Thanks for your input Andrus, just know that there is
    > >> a test case for this was motivation enough to prove
    > >> myself wrong.
    > >>
    > >> Cheers,
    > >> Filip
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> On 4/25/05, Filip Balas <fbala..mail.com> wrote:
    > >> > Hmmm, okay I don't like to blame someone else's code
    > >> > unless I'm 100% sure. Later today I will set up a purely
    > >> > clean test (seperate table, seperate map, sperate test class). If
    > >> this doesn't work I'll submit a bug...
    > >> >
    > >> > Thanks again,
    > >> > Filip
    > >> >
    > >> > On 4/25/05, Andrus Adamchik <andru..bjectstyle.org> wrote:
    > >> > > I am still dubious that this is Cayenne problem as we have test
    > >> cases that cover this situation. So I recommend doublechecking
    > >> that you don't have your old incorrect DataMap sitting somewhere
    > >> in the classpath, and also check if it works with Cayenne 1.1.1
    > >> (unless your code depends heavily on 1.2 API making this
    > >> impossible).
    > >> > >
    > >> > > If it still doesn't work, please submit a bug report containing
    > >> DataMap XML file and a code snippet that trigers this fetch.
    > >> > >
    > >> > > Andrus
    > >> > >
    > >> > >
    > >> > > > I'm on the bleeding edge (could be why I'm having the
    > >> > > > problem) cayenne 1.2M3.
    > >> > > >
    > >> > > > Filip
    > >> > > >
    > >> > > >
    > >> > > > On 4/25/05, Andrus Adamchik <andru..bjectstyle.org> wrote:
    > >> > > >> You shouldn't have to do anything special. Cayenne (including
    > >> the Modeler) works fine with simple parent-child hierarchies.
    > >> For "children" I expect the generated query to look even
    > >> simpler:
    > >> > > >>
    > >> > > >> SELECT t0.description, t0.id, t0.parent_id
    > >> > > >> FROM dbo.IMV_locations t0, dbo.IMV_locations t1
    > >> > > >> WHERE t0.parent_id = ? [bind: 1]
    > >> > > >>
    > >> > > >> So ... What version of Cayenne do you have? There was a bug
    > >> long time ago that messed it up, but I am fairly sure it is
    > >> fixed in 1.1 final and 1.1.1 releases.
    > >> > > >>
    > >> > > >> Andrus
    > >> > > >>
    > >> > > >>
    > >> > > >> > Hi Andrus,
    > >> > > >> >
    > >> > > >> > Yes that makes perfect sense. I didn't catch that error, I
    > >> just
    > >> > > >> assumed the modeler would generate the right xml when
    > >> > > >> > I selected the proper source and target.
    > >> > > >> >
    > >> > > >> > However, even when I corrected the xml manually to your
    > >> suggestion, I still have the following statement generated by
    > >> cayenne:
    > >> > > >> >
    > >> > > >> > SELECT t0.description, t0.id, t0.parent_id
    > >> > > >> > FROM dbo.IMV_locations t0, dbo.IMV_locations t1
    > >> > > >> > WHERE t0.parent_id = t1.id AND (t1.parent_id = ?) [bind: 1]
    > >> > > >> >
    > >> > > >> > I need it to read:
    > >> > > >> >
    > >> > > >> > SELECT t0.description, t0.id, t0.parent_id
    > >> > > >> > FROM dbo.IMV_locations t0, dbo.IMV_locations t1
    > >> > > >> > WHERE t0.parent_id = t1.id AND (t1.id = ?) [bind: 1]
    > >> > > >> >
    > >> > > >> > In another spot in my code I have a hierarchy set up but it
    > >> is a many to many (map, not tree) and cayenne seems
    > >> > > >> > to deal with that beautifully. To achieve this I have an
    > >> > > >> intermediate table that maps locations to one another. Will I
    > >> have to add
    > >> > > >> > this extra table with a one-To-one constraint to ensure a
    > >> tree
    > >> > > >> structure and not a map?
    > >> > > >> >
    > >> > > >> > Thanks to all who have answered.
    > >> > > >> > Your help is greatly appreciated.
    > >> > > >> > Filip
    > >> > > >> >
    > >> > > >> >
    > >> > > >> >
    > >> > > >> > On 4/24/05, Andrus Adamchik <andru..bjectstyle.org> wrote:
    > >> > > >> >> Hi Filip,
    > >> > > >> >>
    > >> > > >> >> > <obj-relationship name="children" source="Location"
    > >> > > >> >> target="Location" deleteRule="Cascade"
    > >> > > >> >> > db-relationship-path="rel_children.rel_children"/>
    > >> > > >> >> >
    > >> > > >> >> > <obj-relationship name="parent" source="Location"
    > >> > > >> target="Location"
    > >> > > >> >> db-relationship-path="rel_parent.rel_parent"/>
    > >> > > >> >>
    > >> > > >> >> The way relationships above are mapped you'll be getting
    > >> > > >> GRANDchildren and GRANDparents. Is this really what you want?
    > >> The query you quote seems correct (for grandchildren). What I
    > >> mean is that
    > >> > > >> >>
    > >> > > >> >>
    > >> > > >> >> > SELECT t0.description, t0.id, t0.parent_id
    > >> > > >> >> > FROM dbo.IMV_locations t0, dbo.IMV_locations t1
    > >> > > >> >> > WHERE t0.parent_id = t1.id AND (t1.parent_id = ?) [bind:
    > >> 1]
    > >> > > >> >>
    > >> > > >> >> is a short form for
    > >> > > >> >>
    > >> > > >> >> SELECT t0.description, t0.id, t0.parent_id
    > >> > > >> >> FROM dbo.IMV_locations t0, dbo.IMV_locations t1,
    > >> dbo.IMV_locations
    > >> > > >> t2 WHERE t0.parent_id = t1.id AND t1.parent_id = t2.id AND
    > >> t2.id > > > >> ? [bind: 1]
    > >> > > >> >>
    > >> > > >> >> (see an extra join)... If you need direct children, then you
    > >> need
    > >> > > >> to remove the last component in the obj-relationship path. The
    > >> resulting mapping should look like this:
    > >> > > >> >>
    > >> > > >> >>
    > >> > > >> >> <obj-relationship name="children" source="Location"
    > >> > > >> target="Location" deleteRule="Cascade"
    > >> > > >> >> db-relationship-path="rel_children"/>
    > >> > > >> >>
    > >> > > >> >> <obj-relationship name="parent" source="Location"
    > >> target="Location"
    > >> > > >> db-relationship-path="rel_parent"/>
    > >> > > >> >>
    > >> > > >> >> I hope I understood your requirements correctly...
    > >> > > >> >>
    > >> > > >> >> Andrus
    > >> > > >> >>
    > >> > > >> >>
    > >> > > >> >
    > >> > > >> >
    > >> > > >> > --
    > >> > > >> > Cell : 403.461.7895
    > >> > > >> > Work: 403.770.1534
    > >> > > >> > MSN: fbala..otmail.com
    > >> > > >>
    > >> > > >>
    > >> > > >
    > >> > > >
    > >> > > > --
    > >> > > > Cell : 403.461.7895
    > >> > > > Work: 403.770.1534
    > >> > > > MSN: fbala..otmail.com
    > >> > >
    > >> > >
    > >> >
    > >> > --
    > >> > Cell : 403.461.7895
    > >> > Work: 403.770.1534
    > >> > MSN: fbala..otmail.com
    > >> >
    > >>
    > >> --
    > >> Cell : 403.461.7895
    > >> Work: 403.770.1534
    > >> MSN: fbala..otmail.com
    > >>
    > >
    > >
    > > --
    > > Cell : 403.461.7895
    > > Work: 403.770.1534
    > > MSN: fbala..otmail.com
    >
    >

    -- 
    Cell  : 403.461.7895
    Work: 403.770.1534
    MSN:  fbala..otmail.com
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Wed Apr 27 2005 - 18:44:28 EDT