RE: Partial collection problem
Rob, I have had this problem to, and posted all the info that I could to try to diagnose the issue, to no avail. I ended up just coding a work around to get what I needed. I noticed that when I ran a query to get the count of expected objects, the count I got back was right, but the collection was always n+1 (just as you described). For the workaround I first get an enumeration of primary keys (because that works as expected), then go through each of the referenced tables, and build a hashmap of the rest of the objects that I need. Then I piece them together at the end, and return a collection of 'Whole' objects. I think its actually faster than the OJB code would have been, because its fewer trips to the DB. I had to do this workaround, even though it is a little clunky, because we are going to production soon, and I wasn't able to solve the original Collection problem. I only have one class with a collection, so I only had to do the workaround once. I am hoping that the issue gets resolved, because I don't want to have to code any more OJB workarounds, and I don't want to abandon OJB when we move to the next project. Are you able to determine what the issue is? Previous postings pointed to JBoss issues, but I have websphere and DB2 (my issue could be my JDBC driver, I haven't tried any others). It seemed to me that a resultSet was being closed early. please post if you resolve the issue -John -Original Message- From: Rob Kischuk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 7:09 AM To: 'OJB Users List' Subject: RE: Partial collection problem Thanks for the suggestion. I built from the latest code in CVS last night, and still had the same problem. -Rob -Original Message- From: Armin Waibel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 7:23 PM To: OJB Users List Subject: Re: Partial collection problem Hi Rob, I think this is an known issue, please try latest CVS. regards, Armin - Original Message - From: Rob Kischuk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 3:31 PM Subject: RE: Partial collection problem This is a big problem - we have a collection of 200 items that we are retrieving, and the first query only retrieves a single item, with each subsequent query retrieving one more item (e.g. - the fifth query result has 5 items). This seems to be either a very nasty error on my part, or a major bug. Can anyone shed some additional light on this? Is it a bug? Is there a workaround? This is a major showstopper for OJB on an application we're working on, and could require some major rework. -Rob -Original Message- From: Rob Kischuk Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 9:43 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: Partial collection problem I saw a discussion cross this list a while back regarding this same problem, but with no solution. The problem is this: when I run a query to load a collection of objects that contain other objects, the first call retrieves only the first item in the collection. The second call retrieves a total of 2 items, the third, a total of 3 items, and so on. Obviously, the correct functionality would be to have all of the items in the collection retrieved on the first call. I described the issue in great detail as a part of Defect OJB172: http://scarab.werken.com/issues/curmodule/120/tqk/0/template/ViewIssue.v m/id /OJB172/issuelist/-1/issuelist/1/issuelist/OJB172 http://scarab.werken.com/issues/curmodule/120/tqk/0/template/ViewIssue. vm/i d/OJB172/issuelist/-1/issuelist/1/issuelist/OJB172 But it appears that the defect hasn't been touched since I entered it. Is there a known fix or workaround for it? Thanks! Rob - 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] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Partial collection problem
I've had this problem too. The issue is that the result set is being closed prematurely because the eager-release attribute in the connection descriptor was set to true; if you can try setting this to false. I was able to do this without any probs because I'nm using tomcat, the problem appeared because i tried to port to jboss and changed the eager release setting. cheers Jin - Original Message - From: McCaffrey, John G. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'OJB Users List' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 3:46 PM Subject: RE: Partial collection problem Rob, I have had this problem to, and posted all the info that I could to try to diagnose the issue, to no avail. I ended up just coding a work around to get what I needed. I noticed that when I ran a query to get the count of expected objects, the count I got back was right, but the collection was always n+1 (just as you described). For the workaround I first get an enumeration of primary keys (because that works as expected), then go through each of the referenced tables, and build a hashmap of the rest of the objects that I need. Then I piece them together at the end, and return a collection of 'Whole' objects. I think its actually faster than the OJB code would have been, because its fewer trips to the DB. I had to do this workaround, even though it is a little clunky, because we are going to production soon, and I wasn't able to solve the original Collection problem. I only have one class with a collection, so I only had to do the workaround once. I am hoping that the issue gets resolved, because I don't want to have to code any more OJB workarounds, and I don't want to abandon OJB when we move to the next project. Are you able to determine what the issue is? Previous postings pointed to JBoss issues, but I have websphere and DB2 (my issue could be my JDBC driver, I haven't tried any others). It seemed to me that a resultSet was being closed early. please post if you resolve the issue -John -Original Message- From: Rob Kischuk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 7:09 AM To: 'OJB Users List' Subject: RE: Partial collection problem Thanks for the suggestion. I built from the latest code in CVS last night, and still had the same problem. -Rob -Original Message- From: Armin Waibel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 7:23 PM To: OJB Users List Subject: Re: Partial collection problem Hi Rob, I think this is an known issue, please try latest CVS. regards, Armin - Original Message - From: Rob Kischuk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 3:31 PM Subject: RE: Partial collection problem This is a big problem - we have a collection of 200 items that we are retrieving, and the first query only retrieves a single item, with each subsequent query retrieving one more item (e.g. - the fifth query result has 5 items). This seems to be either a very nasty error on my part, or a major bug. Can anyone shed some additional light on this? Is it a bug? Is there a workaround? This is a major showstopper for OJB on an application we're working on, and could require some major rework. -Rob -Original Message- From: Rob Kischuk Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 9:43 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: Partial collection problem I saw a discussion cross this list a while back regarding this same problem, but with no solution. The problem is this: when I run a query to load a collection of objects that contain other objects, the first call retrieves only the first item in the collection. The second call retrieves a total of 2 items, the third, a total of 3 items, and so on. Obviously, the correct functionality would be to have all of the items in the collection retrieved on the first call. I described the issue in great detail as a part of Defect OJB172: http://scarab.werken.com/issues/curmodule/120/tqk/0/template/ViewIssue.v m/id /OJB172/issuelist/-1/issuelist/1/issuelist/OJB172 http://scarab.werken.com/issues/curmodule/120/tqk/0/template/ViewIssue. vm/i d/OJB172/issuelist/-1/issuelist/1/issuelist/OJB172 But it appears that the defect hasn't been touched since I entered it. Is there a known fix or workaround for it? Thanks! Rob - 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
Re: Partial collection problem
Hi Rob, I think this is an known issue, please try latest CVS. regards, Armin - Original Message - From: Rob Kischuk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 3:31 PM Subject: RE: Partial collection problem This is a big problem - we have a collection of 200 items that we are retrieving, and the first query only retrieves a single item, with each subsequent query retrieving one more item (e.g. - the fifth query result has 5 items). This seems to be either a very nasty error on my part, or a major bug. Can anyone shed some additional light on this? Is it a bug? Is there a workaround? This is a major showstopper for OJB on an application we're working on, and could require some major rework. -Rob -Original Message- From: Rob Kischuk Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 9:43 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: Partial collection problem I saw a discussion cross this list a while back regarding this same problem, but with no solution. The problem is this: when I run a query to load a collection of objects that contain other objects, the first call retrieves only the first item in the collection. The second call retrieves a total of 2 items, the third, a total of 3 items, and so on. Obviously, the correct functionality would be to have all of the items in the collection retrieved on the first call. I described the issue in great detail as a part of Defect OJB172: http://scarab.werken.com/issues/curmodule/120/tqk/0/template/ViewIssue.v m/id /OJB172/issuelist/-1/issuelist/1/issuelist/OJB172 http://scarab.werken.com/issues/curmodule/120/tqk/0/template/ViewIssue. vm/i d/OJB172/issuelist/-1/issuelist/1/issuelist/OJB172 But it appears that the defect hasn't been touched since I entered it. Is there a known fix or workaround for it? Thanks! Rob - 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]
