Re: Final release?

Tue, 11 Jul 2006 07:43:34 -0700 

Would you like a tarball of it?



I suggest opening a Jira issue and attaching the tarball to it  
(unless there is business-sensitive info in the model?)



I can look into it, too.



If you want to take a lead on that, please do. But I'll be willing to  
help at any moment, as I really want to get 1.2 out asap.


Andrus



On Jul 11, 2006, at 10:31 AM, Gentry, Michael ((Contractor)) wrote:


OK, I now have a standalone test.  The original application would  
throw

an exception with a Sybase backend.  My test case throws the same

exception with a PostgreSQL backend, so we can eliminate the binary  
key

wackiness from the equation.  My gut feeling is inheritance has

something to do with it, since my non-inheritance test didn't fail,  
but

it is only a gut feeling.

Would you like a tarball of it?  I can look into it, too.

Thanks,

/dev/mrg


-----Original Message-----
From: Andrus Adamchik [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2006 2:05 PM
To: cayenne-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Final release?


Mike, would it be possible to create a small standalone unit test to
reproduce this?

Andrus


On Jul 7, 2006, at 3:46 PM, Gentry, Michael ((Contractor)) wrote:


I hate to be a party pooper, but I have another concern ...

Now that I can insert again (thanks!), I run into this problem.
Given:

CollectionElement ->> Item <<- Notification

If I insert an Item (it is just a many-to-many linkage table) in one
request, and then immediately delete it again in the next request,
I am
getting optimistic locking exceptions.  If I restart the app, I can
then

go in and delete it.  Here are some of the logs when doing the  
delete:



item (starting out):
PID=0x00000000000000225c85a35e]{<ObjectId:PSEnumeratedItem,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; committed;
[collectionElement=>{<ObjectId:PSLocalCollectionElement,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>}; moniker=>ES;
notification=>{<ObjectId:FENotification, [EMAIL PROTECTED]>}]}

collectionElement.removeFromItems(item);
[PID=0x00000000000000225c85a35e]{<ObjectId:PSEnumeratedItem,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; modified; [collectionElement=>null;
moniker=>ES;
notification=>{<ObjectId:FENotification, [EMAIL PROTECTED]>}]}

notification.removeFromItems(item);
[PID=0x00000000000000225c85a35e]{<ObjectId:PSEnumeratedItem,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; modified; [collectionElement=>null;
moniker=>ES;
notification=>null]}

dataContext.deleteObject(item);
[PID=0x00000000000000225c85a35e]{<ObjectId:PSEnumeratedItem,

[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; deleted; [collectionElement=>null;  
moniker=>ES;

notification=>null]}

dataContext.commitChanges();
org.objectstyle.cayenne.access.QueryLogger  - DELETE FROM PS_Item
WHERE

identifier = ? AND elementPID IS NULL AND moniker = ? AND  
objectPID IS

NULL
org.objectstyle.cayenne.access.QueryLogger  - [bind: < 00 00 00 00
00 00
00 22 5C 85 A3 5E >, NULL, 'ES', NULL]
org.objectstyle.cayenne.access.QueryLogger  - *** error.
org.objectstyle.cayenne.access.OptimisticLockException: [v.1.2M12
March
23 2006] Optimistic Lock Failure, SQL: [DELETE FROM PS_Item WHERE

identifier = ? AND elementPID IS NULL AND moniker = ? AND  
objectPID IS

NULL], WHERE clause bindings: [moniker='ES', identifier=< 00 00 00
00 00
00 00 22 5C 85 A3 5E >, objectPID=NULL, elementPID=NULL]


Ignore the 1.2M12 -- I'm running against the latest from Subversion
within Eclipse (guess that M12 the last time I did a full build using
ant).  The bind output is also misleading -- 4 values for 2 ?'s (I
thought I fixed that at one point, but maybe that was for UPDATE
only).
Anyway, this code used to work in 1.2M9 (and earlier).  I use
optimistic
locking on everything, but there are no cascade/etc delete rules.

I'll experiment/debug more, just thought I'd report it in case you
were
trying to put out the release.

Thanks!

/dev/mrg

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrus Adamchik [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ]
Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 10:33 AM
To: cayenne-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Final release?


Let's at least submit this as a bug. I think I may have an older
Linux box where I can put Sybase and play with a solution that I had
in mind.

In any event whatever fix we end up with, it should be possible to
stick it in a custom PkGenerator, so it shouldn't be a problem for
1.2 users if it goes in release 3.0 (and we can port it to 1.2.1 as
well).

Andrus

On Jul 6, 2006, at 10:16 AM, Gentry, Michael ((Contractor)) wrote:

My biggest concern right now is the Sybase PK question.  If I can  
get

our DBA (who is out right now) to set me up a playground somewhere,
I'll
test it.  Of course, we could decide to handle that as a bug fix,
too.
Either way, I won't be upgrading past M9 for a bit ...

Thanks,

/dev/mrg



-----Original Message-----
From: Andrus Adamchik [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ]

Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 11:07 AM
To: cayenne-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Final release?


I think it's time to make the final release of 1.2 and move ahead
with other things that we planned. I am working on finishing the

documentation (namely remote object persistence tutorial), and  
fixing

last minute bugs. I think we are in a good shape overall. So how
about a release sometime early next week.

Comments? Objections?

Andrus
































					Reply via email to