objectbridge-developers

RE: [OJB-developers] Field descriptor order requirement and primary keys

[John F. <jfr...@so...>]

I guess I'm confused.

In my existing database schema, the primary key column(s) are not always
the first ones in the table.

Also, I sometimes have "extra" columns in a table that I don't want OJB
to do anything with so they aren't even in the repository.xml as it
would just slow things down more.  Is this allowed as long as those
columns have default values to handle any sql inserts OJB would perform?

With that background, what should I be setting my id=3D"" attributes of
the FieldDescriptor's to?  They can't possibly be the order of the
columns in the table because then the one with
<PrimaryKey>true</PrimaryKey> will not have id=3D"1" as it is the 4th
column in the table.

From the RsIterator code snippet below, there is an assumption that the
primary keys are always first in the m_row member.  And the ordering of
the m_row member seems to correspond to the id=3D"" numbers from the =
field
descriptor.

So, my assertion is that if you have a field descriptor with
<PrimaryKey>true</PrimaryKey> and it is not id=3D"1" then OJB doesn't
work.  And by extension if you had a compound primary key with multiple
field descriptors having <PrimaryKey> elements, they would need to be 1,
2, 3, etc.

Is that just the way it is designed?  I don't see this documented
anywhere, but I may have missed it of course.

If this is true, I'll volunteer to add some checking of this during the
parsing of repository.xml as I think this is a pretty error prone part
of mapping.

Thanks,
 - John


-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Mahler [mailto:tho...@ho...]
Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 2:58 PM
To: John Freeborg
Cc: Obj...@li...
Subject: Re: [OJB-developers] Field descriptor order requirement and
primary keys

Hi John,

FieldDescriptor need a numeric ID. The Ids must ordered ascending=20
according to the corresponding columns in the database table.

The physical position in the xml repository is not important.

HTH,

Thomas

There is some code that

John Freeborg wrote:

> Does OJB have a requirement that in the repository.xml file, all
primary
> key field descriptors must be first inside a class descriptor?
>=20
> I don't have it that way (my primary key field descriptor happened to
be
> number 4, not 1).  After scratching my head a lot on why my query for
a
> collection looked so strange, I hauled out BugSeeker and found the
> following code marked with ---> below that seems to assume a certain
> primary key field descriptor order.  Interestingly the line above that
> is commented out doesn't appear to have this problem.
>=20
> Is this an unintended side effect of the optimization?  Is this
broken?
>=20
> Thanks,
>  - John
>=20
>=20
>>From RsIterator.java in 0.8.361:
>=20
>     protected Identity getIdentityFromResultSet() throws
> PersistenceBrokerException
>     {
>         try
>         {
>             // fill primary key values from Resultset
>             FieldDescriptor fld;
>             FieldDescriptor[] pkFields =3D m_mif.getPkFields();
>             Object[] pkValues =3D new Object[pkFields.length];
>=20
>             for (int i =3D 0; i < pkFields.length; i++)
>             {
>                 fld =3D pkFields[i];
>                 //pkValues[i] =3D JdbcAccess.getObjectFromColumn(m_rs,
> fld);
> --->            pkValues[i] =3D m_row[i];
>             }
>             // return identity object build up from primary keys
>             return new Identity(getExtentClass(), pkValues);
>         }
>         catch (Throwable t)
>         {
>             logger.error(t);
>             throw new PersistenceBrokerException(t);
>         }
>     }
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> Objectbridge-developers mailing list
> Obj...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/objectbridge-developers
>=20

RE: [OJB-developers] Field descriptor order requirement and primary keys

[John F. <jfr...@so...>]

Thank you for your detailed reply Thomas!

However, there is I believe definitely a bug here, but I'm not
communicating it effectively so I created a simple test case based on
your example showing the problem.  All the necessary files are attached
in the zip.

When you select all the products that have a value of 1 you should get
these 3:

	Cars	BMW	34000		1	BMW 330ci	1
	Cars	Volvo	23000		2	Volvo 990	1
	Boats	Swan	2500000	4	55 foot	1

But when you use OJB you don't.  You get:

	Product[id=3D1,name=3DBMW,price=3D34000,stock=3D1category=3DCars]
	Product[id=3D1,name=3DBMW,price=3D34000,stock=3D1category=3DCars]
	Product[id=3D4,name=3DSwan,price=3D2500000,stock=3D1category=3DBoats]

When I dug into this using my debugger, I found that the snippet of code
in RsIterator.java was the problem (or appeared to be - perhaps the root
problem lies elsewhere).

Hope this helps illustrate the problem with the code that I'm seeing.
Just trying to help make OJB even better!

I'm using 0.8.361, but I uncommented some of the logging stuff in the
JdbcAccess just to get more info on what was going on.

SQL Server 2000 w/ SP3 and NetDirect JSQLConnect JDBC drivers.

Regards,
 - John


-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Mahler [mailto:tho...@ho...]
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 5:13 AM
To: John Freeborg
Cc: Obj...@li...
Subject: Re: [OJB-developers] Field descriptor order requirement and
primary keys


Hi John,


John Freeborg wrote:

> I guess I'm confused.
>=20
> In my existing database schema, the primary key column(s) are not
always
> the first ones in the table.


No problem.


>=20
> Also, I sometimes have "extra" columns in a table that I don't want
OJB
> to do anything with so they aren't even in the repository.xml as it
> would just slow things down more.=20


No problem.

> Is this allowed as long as those
> columns have default values to handle any sql inserts OJB would
perform?
>=20


OJB won't touch these columns, as it does not know anything about them!


> With that background, what should I be setting my id=3D"" attributes =
of
> the FieldDescriptor's to?  They can't possibly be the order of the
> columns in the table because then the one with
> <PrimaryKey>true</PrimaryKey> will not have id=3D"1" as it is the 4th
> column in the table.
>=20


Say we have this table:
CREATE TABLE PRODUCT (
   NAME  CHAR(100),
   PRICE DOUBLE,
   ID    INT PRIMARY KEY,
   HIDDEN VARCHAR(1000),
   STOCK INT

)

This is the persistent class:
public class Product
{
     private int id;
     protected String name;
     protected double price;

     // column HIDDEN is not mapped to any attribute

     protected int stock;
}


This is the ClassDescriptor:
<ClassDescriptor id=3D"product">
   <class.name>tutorial.Product</class.name>
   <table.name>PRODUCT</table.name>
   <FieldDescriptor id=3D"1">
     <field.name>name</field.name>
     <column.name>NAME</column.name>
     <jdbc_type>CHAR</jdbc_type>
   </FieldDescriptor>
   <FieldDescriptor id=3D"2">
     <field.name>price</field.name>
     <column.name>PRICE</column.name>
     <jdbc_type>DOUBLE</jdbc_type>
   </FieldDescriptor>
   <FieldDescriptor id=3D"3">
     <field.name>id</field.name>
     <column.name>ID</column.name>
     <jdbc_type>INT</jdbc_type>
     <PrimaryKey>true</PrimaryKey>
     <autoincrement>true</autoincrement>
   </FieldDescriptor>
   <FieldDescriptor id=3D"4">
     <field.name>stock</field.name>
     <column.name>STOCK</column.name>
     <jdbc_type>INT</jdbc_type>
   </FieldDescriptor>
</ClassDescriptor>

The ids of the FieldDescriptors correspond directly to the *order* of=20
the mapped table columns. E.g. the stock column is *not* the fourth=20
column of the table. but it is the fourth *mapped* column.



>>From the RsIterator code snippet below, there is an assumption that
the
> primary keys are always first in the m_row member.=20


this would be an uneccessary restriction!

> And the ordering of
> the m_row member seems to correspond to the id=3D"" numbers from the
field
> descriptor.


That's right


>=20
> So, my assertion is that if you have a field descriptor with
> <PrimaryKey>true</PrimaryKey> and it is not id=3D"1" then OJB doesn't
> work. =20


As long as you maintain the order of the mapped columns in the FK ids=20
OJB does work!

> And by extension if you had a compound primary key with multiple
> field descriptors having <PrimaryKey> elements, they would need to be
1,
> 2, 3, etc.


they might as well be 4, 17, 23 !


> Is that just the way it is designed?  I don't see this documented
> anywhere, but I may have missed it of course.
>=20


I thought it was documented somewhere, but did not find it :-(


> If this is true, I'll volunteer to add some checking of this during
the
> parsing of repository.xml as I think this is a pretty error prone part
> of mapping.
>=20


Maybe it would be the best thing to eliminate the id based lookup of=20
columns as there are several things like freeform SQL queries that don't

work well with this approach.

cu,
Thomas


> Thanks,
>  - John
>=20
>=20
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Mahler [mailto:tho...@ho...]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 2:58 PM
> To: John Freeborg
> Cc: Obj...@li...
> Subject: Re: [OJB-developers] Field descriptor order requirement and
> primary keys
>=20
> Hi John,
>=20
> FieldDescriptor need a numeric ID. The Ids must ordered ascending=20
> according to the corresponding columns in the database table.
>=20
> The physical position in the xml repository is not important.
>=20
> HTH,
>=20
> Thomas
>=20
> There is some code that
>=20
> John Freeborg wrote:
>=20
>=20
>>Does OJB have a requirement that in the repository.xml file, all
>>
> primary
>=20
>>key field descriptors must be first inside a class descriptor?
>>
>>I don't have it that way (my primary key field descriptor happened to
>>
> be
>=20
>>number 4, not 1).  After scratching my head a lot on why my query for
>>
> a
>=20
>>collection looked so strange, I hauled out BugSeeker and found the
>>following code marked with ---> below that seems to assume a certain
>>primary key field descriptor order.  Interestingly the line above that
>>is commented out doesn't appear to have this problem.
>>
>>Is this an unintended side effect of the optimization?  Is this
>>
> broken?
>=20
>>Thanks,
>> - John
>>
>>
>>>From RsIterator.java in 0.8.361:
>>
>>    protected Identity getIdentityFromResultSet() throws
>>PersistenceBrokerException
>>    {
>>        try
>>        {
>>            // fill primary key values from Resultset
>>            FieldDescriptor fld;
>>            FieldDescriptor[] pkFields =3D m_mif.getPkFields();
>>            Object[] pkValues =3D new Object[pkFields.length];
>>
>>            for (int i =3D 0; i < pkFields.length; i++)
>>            {
>>                fld =3D pkFields[i];
>>                //pkValues[i] =3D JdbcAccess.getObjectFromColumn(m_rs,
>>fld);
>>--->            pkValues[i] =3D m_row[i];
>>            }
>>            // return identity object build up from primary keys
>>            return new Identity(getExtentClass(), pkValues);
>>        }
>>        catch (Throwable t)
>>        {
>>            logger.error(t);
>>            throw new PersistenceBrokerException(t);
>>        }
>>    }

Re: [OJB-developers] Field descriptor order requirement and primary keys

[Jakob B. <jbr...@ho...>]

hi,

i can reproduce this behaviour. it's caused by an error in RsIterator method
getIdentityFromResultSet():
the pkValues are taken from the wron position in the row:

...
for (int i = 0; i < pkFields.length; i++)
{
fld = pkFields[i];
pkValues[i] = m_row[fld.getColNo() - 1];
//pkValues[i] = m_row[i];   DOES NOT WORK
}
// return identity object build up from primary keys
return new Identity(getExtentClass(), pkValues);
...

hth jakob

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Freeborg" <jfr...@so...>
To: "Thomas Mahler" <tho...@ho...>
Cc: <Obj...@li...>
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 6:44 PM
Subject: RE: [OJB-developers] Field descriptor order requirement and primary
keys


Thank you for your detailed reply Thomas!

However, there is I believe definitely a bug here, but I'm not
communicating it effectively so I created a simple test case based on
your example showing the problem.  All the necessary files are attached
in the zip.

When you select all the products that have a value of 1 you should get
these 3:

Cars BMW 34000 1 BMW 330ci 1
Cars Volvo 23000 2 Volvo 990 1
Boats Swan 2500000 4 55 foot 1

But when you use OJB you don't.  You get:

Product[id=1,name=BMW,price=34000,stock=1category=Cars]
Product[id=1,name=BMW,price=34000,stock=1category=Cars]
Product[id=4,name=Swan,price=2500000,stock=1category=Boats]

When I dug into this using my debugger, I found that the snippet of code
in RsIterator.java was the problem (or appeared to be - perhaps the root
problem lies elsewhere).

Hope this helps illustrate the problem with the code that I'm seeing.
Just trying to help make OJB even better!

I'm using 0.8.361, but I uncommented some of the logging stuff in the
JdbcAccess just to get more info on what was going on.

SQL Server 2000 w/ SP3 and NetDirect JSQLConnect JDBC drivers.

Regards,
 - John


-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Mahler [mailto:tho...@ho...]
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 5:13 AM
To: John Freeborg
Cc: Obj...@li...
Subject: Re: [OJB-developers] Field descriptor order requirement and
primary keys


Hi John,


John Freeborg wrote:

> I guess I'm confused.
>
> In my existing database schema, the primary key column(s) are not
always
> the first ones in the table.


No problem.


>
> Also, I sometimes have "extra" columns in a table that I don't want
OJB
> to do anything with so they aren't even in the repository.xml as it
> would just slow things down more.


No problem.

> Is this allowed as long as those
> columns have default values to handle any sql inserts OJB would
perform?
>


OJB won't touch these columns, as it does not know anything about them!


> With that background, what should I be setting my id="" attributes of
> the FieldDescriptor's to?  They can't possibly be the order of the
> columns in the table because then the one with
> <PrimaryKey>true</PrimaryKey> will not have id="1" as it is the 4th
> column in the table.
>


Say we have this table:
CREATE TABLE PRODUCT (
   NAME  CHAR(100),
   PRICE DOUBLE,
   ID    INT PRIMARY KEY,
   HIDDEN VARCHAR(1000),
   STOCK INT

)

This is the persistent class:
public class Product
{
     private int id;
     protected String name;
     protected double price;

     // column HIDDEN is not mapped to any attribute

     protected int stock;
}


This is the ClassDescriptor:
<ClassDescriptor id="product">
   <class.name>tutorial.Product</class.name>
   <table.name>PRODUCT</table.name>
   <FieldDescriptor id="1">
     <field.name>name</field.name>
     <column.name>NAME</column.name>
     <jdbc_type>CHAR</jdbc_type>
   </FieldDescriptor>
   <FieldDescriptor id="2">
     <field.name>price</field.name>
     <column.name>PRICE</column.name>
     <jdbc_type>DOUBLE</jdbc_type>
   </FieldDescriptor>
   <FieldDescriptor id="3">
     <field.name>id</field.name>
     <column.name>ID</column.name>
     <jdbc_type>INT</jdbc_type>
     <PrimaryKey>true</PrimaryKey>
     <autoincrement>true</autoincrement>
   </FieldDescriptor>
   <FieldDescriptor id="4">
     <field.name>stock</field.name>
     <column.name>STOCK</column.name>
     <jdbc_type>INT</jdbc_type>
   </FieldDescriptor>
</ClassDescriptor>

The ids of the FieldDescriptors correspond directly to the *order* of
the mapped table columns. E.g. the stock column is *not* the fourth
column of the table. but it is the fourth *mapped* column.



>>From the RsIterator code snippet below, there is an assumption that
the
> primary keys are always first in the m_row member.


this would be an uneccessary restriction!

> And the ordering of
> the m_row member seems to correspond to the id="" numbers from the
field
> descriptor.


That's right


>
> So, my assertion is that if you have a field descriptor with
> <PrimaryKey>true</PrimaryKey> and it is not id="1" then OJB doesn't
> work.


As long as you maintain the order of the mapped columns in the FK ids
OJB does work!

> And by extension if you had a compound primary key with multiple
> field descriptors having <PrimaryKey> elements, they would need to be
1,
> 2, 3, etc.


they might as well be 4, 17, 23 !


> Is that just the way it is designed?  I don't see this documented
> anywhere, but I may have missed it of course.
>


I thought it was documented somewhere, but did not find it :-(


> If this is true, I'll volunteer to add some checking of this during
the
> parsing of repository.xml as I think this is a pretty error prone part
> of mapping.
>


Maybe it would be the best thing to eliminate the id based lookup of
columns as there are several things like freeform SQL queries that don't

work well with this approach.

cu,
Thomas


> Thanks,
>  - John
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Mahler [mailto:tho...@ho...]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 2:58 PM
> To: John Freeborg
> Cc: Obj...@li...
> Subject: Re: [OJB-developers] Field descriptor order requirement and
> primary keys
>
> Hi John,
>
> FieldDescriptor need a numeric ID. The Ids must ordered ascending
> according to the corresponding columns in the database table.
>
> The physical position in the xml repository is not important.
>
> HTH,
>
> Thomas
>
> There is some code that
>
> John Freeborg wrote:
>
>
>>Does OJB have a requirement that in the repository.xml file, all
>>
> primary
>
>>key field descriptors must be first inside a class descriptor?
>>
>>I don't have it that way (my primary key field descriptor happened to
>>
> be
>
>>number 4, not 1).  After scratching my head a lot on why my query for
>>
> a
>
>>collection looked so strange, I hauled out BugSeeker and found the
>>following code marked with ---> below that seems to assume a certain
>>primary key field descriptor order.  Interestingly the line above that
>>is commented out doesn't appear to have this problem.
>>
>>Is this an unintended side effect of the optimization?  Is this
>>
> broken?
>
>>Thanks,
>> - John
>>
>>
>>>From RsIterator.java in 0.8.361:
>>
>>    protected Identity getIdentityFromResultSet() throws
>>PersistenceBrokerException
>>    {
>>        try
>>        {
>>            // fill primary key values from Resultset
>>            FieldDescriptor fld;
>>            FieldDescriptor[] pkFields = m_mif.getPkFields();
>>            Object[] pkValues = new Object[pkFields.length];
>>
>>            for (int i = 0; i < pkFields.length; i++)
>>            {
>>                fld = pkFields[i];
>>                //pkValues[i] = JdbcAccess.getObjectFromColumn(m_rs,
>>fld);
>>--->            pkValues[i] = m_row[i];
>>            }
>>            // return identity object build up from primary keys
>>            return new Identity(getExtentClass(), pkValues);
>>        }
>>        catch (Throwable t)
>>        {
>>            logger.error(t);
>>            throw new PersistenceBrokerException(t);
>>        }
>>    }

[OJB-developers] mailstorm

[<ll...@li...>]

Time for an extra mailing list ?

I propose that a objectbridge-users mailing-list is made. And that all
users from this list initially is subscribed to it.

/Lasse

Re: [OJB-developers] mailstorm

[Thomas M. <tho...@ho...>]

Hi All,

OJB is gathering more and more attention. That is very good!
Until now we managed to have all communication in one mailing list.

I agree to Lasse that it's time to start a new mailing list for all OJB
user related topics (questions, help requests, bug reports, feature
requests, etc.)

I just setup this objectbridge-users list. All OJB users that do not
contribute actively to the code base are requested to subscribe to this
list and to post their messages to this list only. To subcribe follow=20
this link: http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/objectbridge-users


OJB developers are requested to also subcribe to this new list to answer
questions and help users.

Thanks,

Thomas


Lasse Lindg=E5rd wrote:

 > Time for an extra mailing list ?
 >
 > I propose that a objectbridge-users mailing-list is made. And that all
 > users from this list initially is subscribed to it.
 >
 > /Lasse
 >
 >
 >
 >
 > _______________________________________________
 > Objectbridge-developers mailing list
 > Obj...@li...
 > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/objectbridge-developers
 >
 >
 >
 >

Re: [OJB-developers] Field descriptor order requirement and primary keys

[Thomas M. <tho...@ho...>]

Hi John,


John Freeborg wrote:

> I guess I'm confused.
> 
> In my existing database schema, the primary key column(s) are not always
> the first ones in the table.


No problem.


> 
> Also, I sometimes have "extra" columns in a table that I don't want OJB
> to do anything with so they aren't even in the repository.xml as it
> would just slow things down more. 


No problem.

> Is this allowed as long as those
> columns have default values to handle any sql inserts OJB would perform?
> 


OJB won't touch these columns, as it does not know anything about them!


> With that background, what should I be setting my id="" attributes of
> the FieldDescriptor's to?  They can't possibly be the order of the
> columns in the table because then the one with
> <PrimaryKey>true</PrimaryKey> will not have id="1" as it is the 4th
> column in the table.
> 


Say we have this table:
CREATE TABLE PRODUCT (
   NAME  CHAR(100),
   PRICE DOUBLE,
   ID    INT PRIMARY KEY,
   HIDDEN VARCHAR(1000),
   STOCK INT

)

This is the persistent class:
public class Product
{
     private int id;
     protected String name;
     protected double price;

     // column HIDDEN is not mapped to any attribute

     protected int stock;
}


This is the ClassDescriptor:
<ClassDescriptor id="product">
   <class.name>tutorial.Product</class.name>
   <table.name>PRODUCT</table.name>
   <FieldDescriptor id="1">
     <field.name>name</field.name>
     <column.name>NAME</column.name>
     <jdbc_type>CHAR</jdbc_type>
   </FieldDescriptor>
   <FieldDescriptor id="2">
     <field.name>price</field.name>
     <column.name>PRICE</column.name>
     <jdbc_type>DOUBLE</jdbc_type>
   </FieldDescriptor>
   <FieldDescriptor id="3">
     <field.name>id</field.name>
     <column.name>ID</column.name>
     <jdbc_type>INT</jdbc_type>
     <PrimaryKey>true</PrimaryKey>
     <autoincrement>true</autoincrement>
   </FieldDescriptor>
   <FieldDescriptor id="4">
     <field.name>stock</field.name>
     <column.name>STOCK</column.name>
     <jdbc_type>INT</jdbc_type>
   </FieldDescriptor>
</ClassDescriptor>

The ids of the FieldDescriptors correspond directly to the *order* of 
the mapped table columns. E.g. the stock column is *not* the fourth 
column of the table. but it is the fourth *mapped* column.



>>From the RsIterator code snippet below, there is an assumption that the
> primary keys are always first in the m_row member. 


this would be an uneccessary restriction!

> And the ordering of
> the m_row member seems to correspond to the id="" numbers from the field
> descriptor.


That's right


> 
> So, my assertion is that if you have a field descriptor with
> <PrimaryKey>true</PrimaryKey> and it is not id="1" then OJB doesn't
> work.  


As long as you maintain the order of the mapped columns in the FK ids 
OJB does work!

> And by extension if you had a compound primary key with multiple
> field descriptors having <PrimaryKey> elements, they would need to be 1,
> 2, 3, etc.


they might as well be 4, 17, 23 !


> Is that just the way it is designed?  I don't see this documented
> anywhere, but I may have missed it of course.
> 


I thought it was documented somewhere, but did not find it :-(


> If this is true, I'll volunteer to add some checking of this during the
> parsing of repository.xml as I think this is a pretty error prone part
> of mapping.
> 


Maybe it would be the best thing to eliminate the id based lookup of 
columns as there are several things like freeform SQL queries that don't 
work well with this approach.

cu,
Thomas


> Thanks,
>  - John
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Mahler [mailto:tho...@ho...]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 2:58 PM
> To: John Freeborg
> Cc: Obj...@li...
> Subject: Re: [OJB-developers] Field descriptor order requirement and
> primary keys
> 
> Hi John,
> 
> FieldDescriptor need a numeric ID. The Ids must ordered ascending 
> according to the corresponding columns in the database table.
> 
> The physical position in the xml repository is not important.
> 
> HTH,
> 
> Thomas
> 
> There is some code that
> 
> John Freeborg wrote:
> 
> 
>>Does OJB have a requirement that in the repository.xml file, all
>>
> primary
> 
>>key field descriptors must be first inside a class descriptor?
>>
>>I don't have it that way (my primary key field descriptor happened to
>>
> be
> 
>>number 4, not 1).  After scratching my head a lot on why my query for
>>
> a
> 
>>collection looked so strange, I hauled out BugSeeker and found the
>>following code marked with ---> below that seems to assume a certain
>>primary key field descriptor order.  Interestingly the line above that
>>is commented out doesn't appear to have this problem.
>>
>>Is this an unintended side effect of the optimization?  Is this
>>
> broken?
> 
>>Thanks,
>> - John
>>
>>
>>>From RsIterator.java in 0.8.361:
>>
>>    protected Identity getIdentityFromResultSet() throws
>>PersistenceBrokerException
>>    {
>>        try
>>        {
>>            // fill primary key values from Resultset
>>            FieldDescriptor fld;
>>            FieldDescriptor[] pkFields = m_mif.getPkFields();
>>            Object[] pkValues = new Object[pkFields.length];
>>
>>            for (int i = 0; i < pkFields.length; i++)
>>            {
>>                fld = pkFields[i];
>>                //pkValues[i] = JdbcAccess.getObjectFromColumn(m_rs,
>>fld);
>>--->            pkValues[i] = m_row[i];
>>            }
>>            // return identity object build up from primary keys
>>            return new Identity(getExtentClass(), pkValues);
>>        }
>>        catch (Throwable t)
>>        {
>>            logger.error(t);
>>            throw new PersistenceBrokerException(t);
>>        }
>>    }
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Objectbridge-developers mailing list
>>Obj...@li...
>>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/objectbridge-developers
>>
>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Objectbridge-developers mailing list
> Obj...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/objectbridge-developers
> 
> 
> 
>