<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="RSS_xslt_style.asp" version="1.0" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:WebWizForums="http://syndication.webwiz.co.uk/rss_namespace/">
 <channel>
  <title>DevForce Community Forum : Default PersistenceOrder wrong</title>
  <link>http://www.ideablade.com/forum/</link>
  <description>This is an XML content feed of; DevForce Community Forum : DevForce Classic : Default PersistenceOrder wrong</description>
  <pubDate>Wed, 13 May 2026 18:03:57 -700</pubDate>
  <lastBuildDate>Sun, 08 Jun 2008 09:43:04 -700</lastBuildDate>
  <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
  <generator>Web Wiz Forums 9.69</generator>
  <ttl>360</ttl>
  <WebWizForums:feedURL>www.ideablade.com/forum/RSS_post_feed.asp?TID=832</WebWizForums:feedURL>
  
  <item>
   <title>Default PersistenceOrder wrong : Do you have the relationships...</title>
   <link>http://www.ideablade.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=832&amp;PID=3047#3047</link>
   <description>
    <![CDATA[<strong>Author:</strong> <a href="http://www.ideablade.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=23" rel="nofollow">davidklitzke</a><br /><strong>Subject:</strong> 832<br /><strong>Posted:</strong> 08-Jun-2008 at 9:43am<br /><br /><P =Ms&#111;normal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Do you have the relationships between tables from the two differenves databases defined in the Object Mapper.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </SPAN>That could explain your problem.&nbsp; If you only have the relationships defined for tables in the same database, the DevForce Framework can't possibly get the Persistence Order correct.&nbsp; Look at the Advanced Tutorial on "Working with Multiple Databases" for an example.</SPAN></P><P =Ms&#111;normal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></SPAN></P>]]>
   </description>
   <pubDate>Sun, 08 Jun 2008 09:43:04 -700</pubDate>
   <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.ideablade.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=832&amp;PID=3047#3047</guid>
  </item> 
  <item>
   <title>Default PersistenceOrder wrong : Could it be because we are using...</title>
   <link>http://www.ideablade.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=832&amp;PID=3046#3046</link>
   <description>
    <![CDATA[<strong>Author:</strong> <a href="http://www.ideablade.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=327" rel="nofollow">lokheed</a><br /><strong>Subject:</strong> 832<br /><strong>Posted:</strong> 08-Jun-2008 at 8:55am<br /><br />Could it be because we are using two different databases (both are on the same server)?&nbsp; <br><br>The majority of the application uses something like PrimaryDB but the business objects I am having trouble with are all in CustomModuleDB.&nbsp; So CustomModuleDB.dbo.Foo.BarID is a fk constraint to PrimaryDB.dbo.Bar.BarID, and then then there are several tables in CustomModuleDB that have foreign key constraints to CustomModuleDB.dbo.Foo.FooID.&nbsp; What I am seeing is that all of the business objects generated from PrimaryDB are sorted properly, it's the business objects from CustomModuleDB that tend to get out of order. I don't have the option to migrate the tables from CustomModuleDB into PrimaryModuleDB.<br><br>What I will try is to run a topological sort on just the business objects from CustomModuleDB within the list, leaving all of the business objects from PrimaryDB in their relative order.<br>]]>
   </description>
   <pubDate>Sun, 08 Jun 2008 08:55:35 -700</pubDate>
   <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.ideablade.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=832&amp;PID=3046#3046</guid>
  </item> 
  <item>
   <title>Default PersistenceOrder wrong : DevForceuses a Reverse Topological...</title>
   <link>http://www.ideablade.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=832&amp;PID=3045#3045</link>
   <description>
    <![CDATA[<strong>Author:</strong> <a href="http://www.ideablade.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=23" rel="nofollow">davidklitzke</a><br /><strong>Subject:</strong> 832<br /><strong>Posted:</strong> 08-Jun-2008 at 8:23am<br /><br /><P =Ms&#111;normal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0.75pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 1.5pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 1.5pt; mso-margin-top-alt: 0in"><B><FONT face=Verdana color=black size=1><SPAN lang=EN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">DevForce&nbsp;&nbsp;uses a Reverse Topological sort to calculate a default Persistence Order.&nbsp; Occasionally, we hear complaints that the order is not always correct. &nbsp;After an in-depth analysis of these cases, we have found a couple of contributing causes:&nbsp;</SPAN></FONT></B><B><FONT face=Verdana color=black size=1><SPAN lang=EN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">&nbsp;<?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></B></P><P =Ms&#111;normal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0.75pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 1.5pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 1.5pt; mso-margin-top-alt: .75pt"><B><FONT face=Verdana color=black size=1><SPAN lang=EN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">(1)&nbsp; There are too many relationships and/or some contradictory relationships&nbsp;and &nbsp;the problem cannot really be solved.&nbsp; Simplifying the relationships and reducing the number of relationships can sometimes help.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></B></P><P =Ms&#111;normal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0.75pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 1.5pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 1.5pt; mso-margin-top-alt: .75pt"><B><FONT face=Verdana color=black size=1><SPAN lang=EN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></B></P><P =Ms&#111;normal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0.75pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 1.5pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 1.5pt; mso-margin-top-alt: .75pt"><B><FONT face=Verdana color=black size=1><SPAN lang=EN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">(2) There are too few and/or missing relationships.&nbsp; A good example occurs with grandparent-parent-child relationships.&nbsp; Sometimes the relationship between grandparent and child is not declared and the missing relationship shows up as an apparent persistence order problem.</SPAN></FONT></B><B><FONT face=Verdana color=black size=1><SPAN lang=EN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></B></P><P =Ms&#111;normal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0.75pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 1.5pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 1.5pt; mso-margin-top-alt: .75pt"><B><FONT face=Verdana color=black size=1><SPAN lang=EN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">In most cases, we find that subtracting relationships or adding missing relationships can solve the problem.&nbsp; .<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></B></P><P =Ms&#111;normal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0.75pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 1.5pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 1.5pt; mso-margin-top-alt: .75pt"><B><FONT face=Verdana color=black size=1><SPAN lang=EN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></B></P><P =Ms&#111;normal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0.75pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 1.5pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 1.5pt; mso-margin-top-alt: .75pt"><B><FONT face=Verdana color=black size=1><SPAN lang=EN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">I am not saying that there is a better solution to your problem, but we might be able to help you if you could give us a specific example.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></B></P><P =Ms&#111;normal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0.75pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 1.5pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 1.5pt; mso-margin-top-alt: .75pt"><B><FONT face=Verdana color=black size=1><SPAN lang=EN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></B></P>]]>
   </description>
   <pubDate>Sun, 08 Jun 2008 08:23:08 -700</pubDate>
   <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.ideablade.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=832&amp;PID=3045#3045</guid>
  </item> 
  <item>
   <title>Default PersistenceOrder wrong : In our installation, when persisting...</title>
   <link>http://www.ideablade.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=832&amp;PID=3044#3044</link>
   <description>
    <![CDATA[<strong>Author:</strong> <a href="http://www.ideablade.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=327" rel="nofollow">lokheed</a><br /><strong>Subject:</strong> 832<br /><strong>Posted:</strong> 07-Jun-2008 at 6:46am<br /><br />In our installation, when persisting new objects to the db in which there are foreign key constraints, it seems that regularly the PersistenceManager.DefaultSaveOptions.PersistenceOrder is not taking those foreign key constraints into consideration when creating the list.&nbsp; This means that I have had to create a method that casts the PersistenceOrder into a Type array, manually sort the items in that array to take those constraints into account, and then call PersistenceManager.DefaultSaveOptions.SetPersistenceOrder() with the corrected Type array.<br><br>My question is, should I really have to do that?&nbsp; Is there some step or setting I am missing that is causing the persistence manager to not automatically notice those constraints?<br>]]>
   </description>
   <pubDate>Sat, 07 Jun 2008 06:46:20 -700</pubDate>
   <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.ideablade.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=832&amp;PID=3044#3044</guid>
  </item> 
 </channel>
</rss>