Bug 1121672
Summary: | Version is not incremented when a bidirectional one-to-one association changes | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [JBoss] JBoss Enterprise Application Platform 6 | Reporter: | Gary Hu <ghu> |
Component: | Hibernate | Assignee: | Gail Badner <gbadner> |
Status: | CLOSED NOTABUG | QA Contact: | Martin Simka <msimka> |
Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | Russell Dickenson <rdickens> |
Priority: | unspecified | ||
Version: | TBD EAP 6 | CC: | fgavrilo, gbadner, msimka, smarlow |
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
OS: | Unspecified | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2014-07-28 18:11:09 UTC | Type: | Bug |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: |
Description
Gary Hu
2014-07-21 14:41:08 UTC
In JPA 2.1. spec, section 3.4.2 Version Attributes: "All non-relationship fields and properties and all relationships owned by the entity are included in version checks". This is expected behavior because the entity does not own the association that was modified. Hello Gail! And thank you for the link. Personally, I am not a fan of making associations bidirectional in any case. Though, it seems to me that specification is somewhat vague: I think we still can add relationship fields into version checks without violating the spec, can't we? It might be handy for the cases like this. Though, if you think this is a bad idea - could you please explain it to me in more detail so that I could have an argument with the customer? Thanks. P.SP: Just saw yor latest comment on https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/HHH-4289 and I'm kinda lost now. It seems to me that customer wants this fix for 1-to-1 association, so I suppose this is still unresolved, isn't it? HHH-4289 has been rejected. This is not a bug. |