If more than one change has been made to the same topic since the last
update DB2TM only looks at the last change, which can cause problems. For
example, a delete followed by a reinsert will be interpreted as an insert,
causing data to be duplicated.
A fix was attempted in January 2009, but the customer says they have tried
the latest version, and while this gives no error messages, the topic that
should change type has stayed with the older type. (It has just one type.)
Original issue reported on code.google.com by lar...@gmail.com on 26 Jun 2009 at 11:11
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
The problem is that we have a <topic type="#type"> definition that is not
Primary topic entities will not have their topic types replaced at the moment.
Instead any given types will be added to the list of topic types. This is not
very useful. To get around this limitation I do think that we have to say
about which topic types should get replaced (to avoid having any primary topic
<topic type="#type" replace-types="fd:organisasjonsenhet">
If we added support for the replace-types attribute, which takes a topic
to the <topic> element then DB2TM would be able to replace topic types that
instances of the type given in the replace-types attribute, even though the
entity is not primary.
Original comment by firstname.lastname@example.org on 14 Aug 2009 at 11:58
Hmmm. Adding a replace-types attribute sounds very ad-hoc. It seems to me that
are unlikely to pick up on this one, and that they will only add this kind of
attribute after they run into problems and are told to fix it this way by us. I
would feel better about this if we could come up with some more general
I'm not sure I understand why this limitation is there in the first place. Why
we change the topic type if the topic element is not primary?
Original comment by lar...@gmail.com on 14 Aug 2009 at 12:15
Well, that is a good question. :)
I guess there is not really any reason to treat the types of a topic any
than its other characteristics.
Replacing the topic type would work in this particular case, but we might run
issues if there were two different tables that reference the same topic and
them different topic types. What do you think?
Original comment by email@example.com on 14 Aug 2009 at 12:33
I've thought about this and it seems to me that the general issue is that of
do when statements of a specific type are spread over different tables.
that just doesn't happen. For the type it's conceivable that it might happen
(because it's one kind of statement that really might occur in different
but then again we generally consider multi-typing topics to be a bad thing and
So it seems to me that if we treated the topic type the same way as other
then we'd solve this problem, and most likely we would not create a new one. If
did create a new one it would probably a pretty obscure issue, and we could
with an ad-hoc solution at that point (because for really obscure issues ad-hoc
solutions can be defensible).
Does that make sense?
Original comment by lar...@gmail.com on 14 Aug 2009 at 10:18