MMBase

Michiel Meeuwissen added a comment - 1970-01-01 00:59 if you store null in a non-nullable field, that is an error.

Pierre van Rooden added a comment - 1970-01-01 00:59  This is not an option for existing databases, nor does it solve the problem in (future) cases where the database may attempt to store NULL values in other, not-nullable, fields. IMO the db layer has to deal with this: if a field cannot be NULL, do not store NULL, but an acceptable default value. Ofcourse what is an acceptable default depends on the field type - for a NODE field -1 may not be useful as a value (but then again, it is only a real problem is the db uses referential integrity for NODE fields, which most now dont).

Michiel Meeuwissen added a comment - 1970-01-01 00:59 NODEs are always references. Filling in -1 would be simply avoiding the problem, becasue you simply mean 'NULL' then, and using -1 seems a bit silly to me. I'd say that NODE typed fields must always be nullable.

Henk Hangyi added a comment - 2007-02-25 12:43 IMO the default value approach for fields is the best solution. Is this already possible in the present builder syntax or do we have to extend it to make this possible? Lets try to create an intelligent solution for the 1.9 release.

Michiel Meeuwissen added a comment - 2007-02-25 17:34 I think a default value of -1 is not feasible, because a NODE field is essentially a foreign key. There is no node with number -1. I remain of the opinion that a NODE field _must_ be nullable. You must be honost about such cases, if you don't know a value you msut use null.

Michiel Meeuwissen added a comment - 2010-12-30 12:00 I think it's fixed.