Hi Arian,
Thanks for the quick reply and quick fix.
Asked customer, they tested it and it worked fine!
regards,
Hans
On Mon, 2010-07-05 at 08:15 -0700, Adrian Crum wrote:
> Hans,
>
> Try inserting this line in JdbcValueHandler.java, at line 135:
>
> result.put("BYTEA", Types.BINARY);
>
> and let me know if that fixes the problem.
>
> -Adrian
>
> --- On Mon, 7/5/10, Adrian Crum <adrian.c...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > From: Adrian Crum <adrian.c...@yahoo.com>
> > Subject: Re: Discussion: New Field Types: found an error?
> > To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org
> > Date: Monday, July 5, 2010, 7:31 AM
> > Thanks Hans. I will look into it.
> >
> > -Adrian
> >
> > --- On Mon, 7/5/10, Hans Bakker <mailingl...@antwebsystems.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > From: Hans Bakker <mailingl...@antwebsystems.com>
> > > Subject: Re: Discussion: New Field Types: found an
> > error?
> > > To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org
> > > Date: Monday, July 5, 2010, 3:31 AM
> > > It is happening with postgres 8.3
> > >
> > > On Mon, 2010-07-05 at 17:27 +0700, Hans Bakker wrote:
> > > > Hi Adrian,
> > > >
> > > > Could it be of the new field types? one of my
> > > customers got the
> > > > following error when completing an order:
> > > >
> > > > ERROR: Could not complete the Create
> > > ShipmentPackageRouteSeg
> > > >
> > >
> > [file:/E:/workspace/ofbiz959845/applications/product/script/org/ofbiz/shipment/shipment/ShipmentServices.xml#createShipmentPackageRouteSeg]
> > > process [problem creating the newEntity value: Error
> > while
> > > inserting:
> > >
> > [GenericEntity:ShipmentPackageRouteSeg][createdStamp,2010-07-05
> > >
> > 17:26:17.623(java.sql.Timestamp)][lastUpdatedStamp,2010-07-05
> > >
> > 17:26:17.623(java.sql.Timestamp)][lastUpdatedTxStamp,2010-07-05
> > >
> > 17:26:17.216(java.sql.Timestamp)][shipmentId,538260(java.lang.String)][shipmentPackageSeqId,00001(java.lang.String)][shipmentRouteSegmentId,00001(java.lang.String)]
> > > (SQL Exception while executing the following:INSERT
> > INTO
> > > public.SHIPMENT_PACKAGE_ROUTE_SEG (SHIPMENT_ID,
> > > SHIPMENT_PACKAGE_SEQ_ID, SHIPMENT_ROUTE_SEGMENT_ID,
> > > TRACKING_CODE, BOX_NUMBER, LABEL_IMAGE,
> > > LABEL_INTL_SIGN_IMAGE, LABEL_HTML, LABEL_PRINTED,
> > > INTERNATIONAL_INVOICE, PACKAGE_TRANSPORT_COST,
> > > PACKAGE_SERVICE_COST, PACKAGE_OTHER_COST, COD_AMOUNT,
> > > INSURED_AMOUNT, CURRENCY_UOM_ID, LAST_UPDATED_STAMP,
> > > LAST_UPDATED_TX_STAMP, CREATED_STAMP,
> > CREATED_TX_STAMP)
> > > VALUES (?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?,
> > ?, ?,
> > > ?, ?, ?) (ERROR: column "label_image" is of type bytea
> > but
> > > expression is of type oid))]
> > > > [5:00:12 PM] yasin.lyyas(Virt.village): OFBiz
> > revision
> > > number: R959845
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, 2010-06-27 at 07:57 -0700, Adrian Crum
> > wrote:
> > > > > Of course. If the blob field type is used
> > for a
> > > byte array or serialized object, it still works but
> > it
> > > generates a warning that suggests the correct field
> > type.
> > > > >
> > > > > -Adrian
> > > > >
> > > > > --- On Sat, 6/26/10, Jacques Le Roux <jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > From: Jacques Le Roux <jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com>
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Discussion: New Field
> > Types
> > > > > > To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org
> > > > > > Date: Saturday, June 26, 2010, 12:19
> > PM
> > > > > > Looks like a good idea to me. I
> > > > > > suppose you would keep backward
> > > compatibility?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jacques
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: "Adrian Crum" <adrian.c...@yahoo.com>
> > > > > > > The blob field type is being used
> > as a
> > > catch-all for
> > > > > > multiple binary types. Right now
> > getting an
> > > object from a
> > > > > > blob field type
> > > > > > > could return a byte array, a
> > > deserialized Java object,
> > > > > > or a
> > javax.sql.rowset.serial.SerialBlob
> > > object. There is no
> > > > > > way to know for
> > > > > > > sure what will be returned - the
> > entity
> > > engine code
> > > > > > tries various methods until one works.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think it would be better to
> > specify
> > > exactly what you
> > > > > > intend to store in a BLOB SQL type: a
> > byte
> > > array, a
> > > > > > serialized Java object,
> > > > > > > or some unknown binary type. So,
> > I
> > > propose that we add
> > > > > > two new field types: byte-array and
> > object.
> > > Using Derby as
> > > > > > an example, this
> > > > > > > is what it would look like in
> > > fieldtypederby.xml:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > <field-type-def type="blob"
> > > sql-type="BLOB"
> > > > > >
> > > java-type="java.sql.Blob"></field-type-def>
> > > > > > > <field-type-def
> > type="byte-array"
> > > sql-type="BLOB"
> > > > > >
> > > java-type="byte[]"></field-type-def>
> > > > > > > <field-type-def type="object"
> > > sql-type="BLOB"
> > > > > >
> > >
> > java-type="java.lang.Object"></field-type-def>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Getting an object from each field
> > type
> > > would return
> > > > > > the respective Java object type.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -Adrian
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
> > > Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
> > > Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive
> > rates.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
--
Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz
Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak
Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive rates.
