Cool - I will have a better fix committed to the trunk soon.
-Adrian
--- On Tue, 7/6/10, 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: Tuesday, July 6, 2010, 12:55 AM
> 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.
>
>
