[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [eclipselink-users] Insertable=false only being respected if updated=false also present
- From: James Sutherland <jamesssss@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 06:31:46 -0700 (PDT)
- Delivered-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
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)
http://wiki.eclipse.org/User:James.sutherland.oracle.com James Sutherland
EclipseLink , http://www.oracle.com/technology/products/ias/toplink/
Wiki: http://wiki.eclipse.org/EclipseLink EclipseLink ,
Forums: http://forums.oracle.com/forums/forum.jspa?forumID=48 TopLink ,
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.