Apache JDO Project - [VOTE] Add convenience methods deleteObjectById

This is Interesting: Free IT Magazines  
Home > Archive > Apache JDO Project > March 2007 > [VOTE] Add convenience methods deleteObjectById





You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread. To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to this thread please [click here]

Author [VOTE] Add convenience methods deleteObjectById
Craig L Russell

2007-03-09, 1:11 am

Craig L Russell

2007-03-09, 1:11 am

Matthew T. Adams

2007-03-13, 1:11 pm

[ x ] Proposal C (do nothing)

If deleteByObjectId(Object oid) is nothing more than getting the object by id with validate == false and then calling deletePersistent, then the deleteByObjectIid methods are of little value.

----- Original Message ----
From: Craig L Russell <Craig.Russell@sun.com>
Cc: Apache JDO project <jdo-dev@db.apache.org>; JDO Expert Group <jdo-experts-ext@sun.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2007 7:15:34 PM
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Add convenience methods deleteObjectById

Although I like the idea, the details trouble me. We need to specify the behavior incase the instance exists or not, and whether the instance is able to be deleted (e.g. there is a foreign key violation or some locking issue). Another issue is whether the delete is required to be immediate or delayed until commit.

It's possible for the application to do a getObjectsById with the validate parameter set to the developer's choice and then to delete theinstances returned. With validate set to false, this would be as efficientas the proposed deleteObjectsById. So the value for the developer is not as compelling as the other APIs that we've added recently.


Craig

On Mar 8, 2007, at 7:08 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:

Please vote for

[ ] Proposal A void deleteObjectById
[ ] Proposal B long deleteObjectById
[ ] Proposal C (do nothing)


This vote will close Monday 12-Mar-2007.


Please see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-469

I'd like to discuss adding the methods to PersistenceManager:

Both Proposals A and B follow the basic rules of deletePersistent, with differences if the object identified by the oid is not persistent.


Proposal A


proposed by Matthew Adams:
void deleteObjectById(Class cls, Object key); void deleteObjectById(Object oid);
void deleteObjectsById(Collection oids);
void deleteObjectsById(Object[] oids);


With proposal A, any object that cannot be deleted would throw an exception similar to what is done with deletePersistent.


Proposal B


I think we might want to allow for the possibility that it was not possible to delete all the requested items, so add a return value with the number of objects actually deleted:
long deleteObjectById(Class cls, Object key); longdeleteObjectById(Object oid);
long deleteObjectsById(Collection oids);
long deleteObjectsById(Object[ ] oids);


Proposal C


do nothing


Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!







Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!







Sponsored Links






Free braindumps | Software forum | Database administration forum

Copyright 2003 - 2008 webservertalk.com