Armin,

Thanks for the quick response.  This patch does fix the error for me.
I'm still confused about why this code is getting called at all - it looks 
like there is some implicit locking happening, even though 
ImplicitLocking=false.  Am I misunderstanding what's going on?

thanks,
-steve

Steve Clark
ECOS Development Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(970)226-9291




Armin Waibel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
09/23/2005 12:51 PM
Please respond to
"OJB Users List" <ojb-user@db.apache.org>


To
OJB Users List <ojb-user@db.apache.org>
cc

Subject
Re: ObjectEnvelopeTable: "Unexpected behavior"






Hi Steve,

seems I had fixed a bug and introduce another bug - sorry.

 > The insert logic is cascading anyway - the exception is thrown when
 > cascadeInsertSingleReferences() encounters C, which is not new and is 
not
 > known to the Transaction.  Here's the top of the stack trace:

If C is not new and unknown nothing should happen. Think the code 
section throwing the exception should be removed.
So could you try to replace ObjectEnvelopeTable line 589 to 605 with:

if(!alreadyPrepared.contains(oid))
{
     ObjectEnvelope depMod = getByIdentity(oid);
     // if the object isn't registered and is a new object, register it
     // else we have nothing to do
     if(depMod == null && rt.isNew())
     {
         getTransaction().lockAndRegister(rt, Transaction.WRITE, false, 
getTransaction().getRegistrationList());
         depMod = getByIdentity(oid);
         cascadeInsertFor(depMod, alreadyPrepared);
     }
}

Then only unregistered new objects will be performed in cascade insert.
Does this solve your problem?

regards,
Armin


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I am using 1.0.4 from CVS as of yesterday.  I am getting this exception, 

> thrown at ObjectEnvelopeTable line 602 (the comment is the infamous 
> "should never occur").  The behavior was introduced in 1.32.2.22 - I 
have 
> verified that it does not occur in 1.32.2.21.
> 
> What is happening is this: I am creating a new object A, which has a 
> reference to B, which in turn has a reference to C.  I have a write lock 

> on A, a read lock on B, and no lock at all on C.  ImplicitLocking is 
> false.
> 
> The insert logic is cascading anyway - the exception is thrown when 
> cascadeInsertSingleReferences() encounters C, which is not new and is 
not 
> known to the Transaction.  Here's the top of the stack trace:
> 
> java.lang.RuntimeException: Unexpected behavior
>         at 
> 
org.apache.ojb.odmg.ObjectEnvelopeTable.cascadeInsertSingleReferences(ObjectEnvelopeTable.java:603)
>         at 
> 
org.apache.ojb.odmg.ObjectEnvelopeTable.cascadeInsertFor(ObjectEnvelopeTable.java:556)
>         at 
> 
org.apache.ojb.odmg.ObjectEnvelopeTable.cascadeInsertSingleReferences(ObjectEnvelopeTable.java:605)
>         at 
> 
org.apache.ojb.odmg.ObjectEnvelopeTable.cascadeInsertFor(ObjectEnvelopeTable.java:556)
>         at 
> 
org.apache.ojb.odmg.ObjectEnvelopeTable.cascadeInsertSingleReferences(ObjectEnvelopeTable.java:605)
>         at 
> 
org.apache.ojb.odmg.ObjectEnvelopeTable.cascadeInsertFor(ObjectEnvelopeTable.java:556)
>         at 
> 
org.apache.ojb.odmg.ObjectEnvelopeTable.cascadeMarkedForInsert(ObjectEnvelopeTable.java:536)
>         at 
> 
org.apache.ojb.odmg.ObjectEnvelopeTable.cascadingDependents(ObjectEnvelopeTable.java:505)
>         at 
> 
org.apache.ojb.odmg.ObjectEnvelopeTable.writeObjects(ObjectEnvelopeTable.java:170)
>         at 
> 
org.apache.ojb.odmg.TransactionImpl.doWriteObjects(TransactionImpl.java:384)
>         at 
> 
org.apache.ojb.odmg.TransactionImpl.prepareCommit(TransactionImpl.java:743)
>         at 
> org.apache.ojb.odmg.TransactionImpl.commit(TransactionImpl.java:679)
> 
> Why should cascadingDependents() even be called here?  I'm unclear 
whether 
> 1.32.2.22 introduced the behavior and is therefore wrong, or whether it 
> simply exposed some other problem.
> 
> thanks,
> -steve
> 
> Steve Clark
> ECOS Development Group
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> (970)226-9291
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]




---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to