AW: is this an old .97 bug? (sequencing)
Hi Ryan, I've experienced a weird problem in my servlet environment (caucho resin 1.2.6, RH8, sql server 2k, 0.9.7 using PB API) with the sequence manager. Until recently my application has run on 1 application server, with a grab size of 10 for sequences (I'm using the HI_LO seq manager) which was working fine. Now I added a second application server, behind a load balancer with the same settings (Sticky source IP). If I had a problem with sequences I would expect to see UNIQUE KEY constraint errors in my logs. Instead if 2 instances/servers of OJB grab the same or overlapping pools of keys, the first insert succeeds. The weird part is the second app server then inserts with the same already used primary key, and it appears to over-write the record that was already there, thus eating data and masking the problem by succeeding. Is this behavior intentional? Mhh. This is strange indeed. The SQL Server should obviously signal a primary key violation! If it does not it seems to be a problem with the database rather than with OJB. Are you shure you have defined a PRIMARY KEY in the database? If the PRIMARY KEY in the DB does not match the PRIMARY defined in the OJB repository you are likely to get such problems! Should I be running OJB in CS mode? No. This is not a C/S vs. singlevm related problem. I've tried to decrease the grab size to 1, hoping that will alleviate the problem until I find out more. It may be possible that the .97 SequenceManager does not work correctly wrt. serving multiple servers. But this is only one half of the problem. The other half is that the db does not signal PK violations! To avoid problems with the SeqMan you might use (or implement) a different SeqMan that uses SQL Server specific sequence numbering. I've also heard the CS mode has been broken for a while, so should I even mess with it? No, this will only add confusion cheers, Thomas I'm trying to hold on to .97 as long as I can to get something closer to v1.0, as .98 I had to roll back because of some other odd problems. Thanks for any input, Ryan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
AW: website updated
Hi Manu, I rechecked the links. I did not find any problems on the links page: http://db.apache.org/ojb/mail-lists.html Did you reload the page? cheers, Thomas -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Emmnuel CORGE [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Gesendet: Freitag, 14. Februar 2003 10:49 An: OJB Users List; Armin Waibel Betreff: Re: website updated In the mailing list page, the mailbox for list is [EMAIL PROTECTED] whereas actually it is [EMAIL PROTECTED] For exemple, subscribe is in permanently error with the link on the web page ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). Manu. --- Armin Waibel [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit : Excellent! Armin - Original Message - From: Thomas Mahler [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: OJB Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED]; OJB Users List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 8:02 AM Subject: website updated Hi all, Months of waiting have paid: I finally managed to update the website. Our old home at Jakarta is now removed and does only contain a forwarding to the new db.apache.org site. Please use the new site at http://db.apache.org/ojb and report all inconsistenties you may find. cheers, Thomas - 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] ___ Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en français ! Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com - 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]
Re: AW: website updated
Hi Thomas, Did you reload the page? Sorry, I did not reload the page Manu --- Mahler Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit : Hi Manu, I rechecked the links. I did not find any problems on the links page: http://db.apache.org/ojb/mail-lists.html Did you reload the page? cheers, Thomas -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Emmnuel CORGE [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Gesendet: Freitag, 14. Februar 2003 10:49 An: OJB Users List; Armin Waibel Betreff: Re: website updated In the mailing list page, the mailbox for list is [EMAIL PROTECTED] whereas actually it is [EMAIL PROTECTED] For exemple, subscribe is in permanently error with the link on the web page ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). Manu. --- Armin Waibel [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit : Excellent! Armin - Original Message - From: Thomas Mahler [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: OJB Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED]; OJB Users List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 8:02 AM Subject: website updated Hi all, Months of waiting have paid: I finally managed to update the website. Our old home at Jakarta is now removed and does only contain a forwarding to the new db.apache.org site. Please use the new site at http://db.apache.org/ojb and report all inconsistenties you may find. cheers, Thomas - 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] ___ Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en français ! Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com - 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] ___ Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en français ! Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
AW: website updated
Hi, just had a look at the new website. It seems that bookmark links are inconsistent, e.g. the following references bookmark #2 lia href=#2The OJB binary jar archive/a but there is h4a name=1. The OJB binary jar archive1. The OJB binary jar archive/a/h4 My browser does not find the bookmarks. Is this a browser specific behaviour (i'm using ie6)? Regards Max -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Thomas Mahler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Gesendet: Freitag, 14. Februar 2003 08:03 An: OJB Developers List; OJB Users List Betreff: website updated Hi all, Months of waiting have paid: I finally managed to update the website. Our old home at Jakarta is now removed and does only contain a forwarding to the new db.apache.org site. Please use the new site at http://db.apache.org/ojb and report all inconsistenties you may find. cheers, Thomas - 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]
M:N mapping in Tutorial 3
Hello, I'm trying to implement a manually decomposed M:N mapping with a qualified association. As explained in tutorial 3, I need to implement an association class. It's OK. If you see at tutorial 3, page 8, you will see the class-diagram with Person, Role and Project classes. My problem is that I can't and I don't understand how OJB retrieves the projects (in class Person) and the persons (in class Project). These attributes don't appear in the next repository_user listing (page 9 and 10). Somebody could explain me? Thanks Sylvain - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: is this an old .97 bug? (sequencing)
I've checked out my primary keys, and that's definitely set up correctly. After further checking it appears to be happening on several tables that have their primary keys set correctly. It appears if the insert fails OJB is then retrying with an UPDATE. I'm going to turn on my spy.log and see if I can 'catch' it in the act. Ryan -Original Message- From: Mahler Thomas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 3:08 AM To: 'OJB Users List' Subject: AW: is this an old .97 bug? (sequencing) Hi Ryan, I've experienced a weird problem in my servlet environment (caucho resin 1.2.6, RH8, sql server 2k, 0.9.7 using PB API) with the sequence manager. Until recently my application has run on 1 application server, with a grab size of 10 for sequences (I'm using the HI_LO seq manager) which was working fine. Now I added a second application server, behind a load balancer with the same settings (Sticky source IP). If I had a problem with sequences I would expect to see UNIQUE KEY constraint errors in my logs. Instead if 2 instances/servers of OJB grab the same or overlapping pools of keys, the first insert succeeds. The weird part is the second app server then inserts with the same already used primary key, and it appears to over-write the record that was already there, thus eating data and masking the problem by succeeding. Is this behavior intentional? Mhh. This is strange indeed. The SQL Server should obviously signal a primary key violation! If it does not it seems to be a problem with the database rather than with OJB. Are you shure you have defined a PRIMARY KEY in the database? If the PRIMARY KEY in the DB does not match the PRIMARY defined in the OJB repository you are likely to get such problems! Should I be running OJB in CS mode? No. This is not a C/S vs. singlevm related problem. I've tried to decrease the grab size to 1, hoping that will alleviate the problem until I find out more. It may be possible that the .97 SequenceManager does not work correctly wrt. serving multiple servers. But this is only one half of the problem. The other half is that the db does not signal PK violations! To avoid problems with the SeqMan you might use (or implement) a different SeqMan that uses SQL Server specific sequence numbering. I've also heard the CS mode has been broken for a while, so should I even mess with it? No, this will only add confusion cheers, Thomas I'm trying to hold on to .97 as long as I can to get something closer to v1.0, as .98 I had to roll back because of some other odd problems. Thanks for any input, Ryan - 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]
Re: 0.9.9 vs. P6Spy vs. Tomcat
I've experienced this same problem when moving to 0.9.9. Actually I've seen it for some weeks, since I work from the CVS version. I use Resin rather than Tomcat, so it isn't restricted to one app server. As with Steve's experience, it stopped working when the only thing that had changed was upgrading OJB. Regards, Will Jaynes sclark wrote: Does anybody else have P6Spy working with 0.9.9 and Tomcat? I have had it working with 0.9.7 and 0.9.8, as well as with various intermediate bits from the CVS HEAD. But now that I've upgraded to 0.9.9, I don't get any output in my spy.log (actually, I get a bunch of startup messages in there, but no actual SQL logging). I have p6spy.jar in WEB-INF/lib and spy.properties in WEB-INF/classes. This has not changed for weeks, nor has my Tomcat setup. The only thing that has changed is ojb.jar. Any ideas? thanks, -steve Steve Clark Technology Applications Team Natural Resources Research Center/USGS [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]
NoSuchElementException in getIteratorByQuery
I found this discussion in the archives from late December Subject: Iterator Problem : Please help http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg?[EMAIL PROTECTED]msgNo=4616 The original reporter said that he solved the problem by changing his JDK. I'm having a similar problem, but I'm using JDK1.3.1, which is the version which he said solved the problem. Thomas expressed surprise http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg?[EMAIL PROTECTED]msgId=587758 at that diagnosis, and I'm wondering if it might just be coincidental that the original poster found the problem solved when he changed his JDK. Especially given Thomas' surprise, I would ask if it isn't more likely to be a problem with the database driver? I'm using oracle.jdbc.driver.OracleDriver to talk to an Oracle 8i database. Yesterday I was able to use an iterator through a 10K+ row result set without problems, but was getting the exception when I did a similar process through a 50K+ row result set. For some reason this morning, the shorter query also throws the exception. I can getCollectionByQuery with the same query, and I don't get the exception. Is that strange? I know that if this is ultimately a driver problem, then OJB users aren't going to give me a solution. But I thought I'd see if other people had had any similar experiences, and if anyone could offer any suggestions. Since I'm generating an Excel file, I can work around by foregoing object creation at all and just handling a raw result set, but I would rather use OJB completely. Actually, let me put that as a question to power OJB users: is it cheating to get a raw java.sql.Connection out of OJB to do direct work against the tables? Or is it to be expected? It seems particularly appropriate to me for reporting when there's little value in generating objects, but is it against the design intentions of anyone who knows OJB more deeply than I do? Thanks, Joe -- -- Joe Germuska [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blog.germuska.com If nature worked that way, the universe would crash all the time. --Jaron Lanier - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
