Re: New Release Branch
Well, the unresolved issues scheduled for 9.3 are: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=truepid=12310500fixfor=12313602resolution=-1sorter/field=issuekeysorter/order=DESC OFBIZ-2133 has a patch ready and is actually waiting for a review. -Bruno 2009/2/22 BJ Freeman bjf...@free-man.net: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=truepid=12310500fixfor=12313602 it say release Branch 9.3 so no 5,6,7, or 8 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFJoKOGrP3NbaWWqE4RAuf+AJ9Y6UPuy1DlVX4UyT83VVr6PaldwACeJQlb L6cXgWhDj7e6JMebzN6gIuI= =1dLs -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: New Release Branch
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 so why did ofbiz jump from 4.0 to 9.3? Bruno Busco sent the following on 2/22/2009 2:59 AM: Well, the unresolved issues scheduled for 9.3 are: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=truepid=12310500fixfor=12313602resolution=-1sorter/field=issuekeysorter/order=DESC OFBIZ-2133 has a patch ready and is actually waiting for a review. -Bruno 2009/2/22 BJ Freeman bjf...@free-man.net: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=truepid=12310500fixfor=12313602 it say release Branch 9.3 so no 5,6,7, or 8 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFJoTdNrP3NbaWWqE4RAvr/AJ9LFwP9/YE2lSRY3K4tGsId3bjB+gCgijrf kKVBA295Vc0s3fOri/a8P6M= =MILP -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: New Release Branch
Sorry, I did not understand your real question. We have decided to use a release numbering scheme similar to UBUNTU. 9.3 means March 2009 -Bruno 2009/2/22 BJ Freeman bjf...@free-man.net: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 so why did ofbiz jump from 4.0 to 9.3? Bruno Busco sent the following on 2/22/2009 2:59 AM: Well, the unresolved issues scheduled for 9.3 are: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=truepid=12310500fixfor=12313602resolution=-1sorter/field=issuekeysorter/order=DESC OFBIZ-2133 has a patch ready and is actually waiting for a review. -Bruno 2009/2/22 BJ Freeman bjf...@free-man.net: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=truepid=12310500fixfor=12313602 it say release Branch 9.3 so no 5,6,7, or 8 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFJoTdNrP3NbaWWqE4RAvr/AJ9LFwP9/YE2lSRY3K4tGsId3bjB+gCgijrf kKVBA295Vc0s3fOri/a8P6M= =MILP -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: New Release Branch
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 interesting. so how do you denote a minor release or update? Bruno Busco sent the following on 2/22/2009 3:35 AM: Sorry, I did not understand your real question. We have decided to use a release numbering scheme similar to UBUNTU. 9.3 means March 2009 -Bruno 2009/2/22 BJ Freeman bjf...@free-man.net: so why did ofbiz jump from 4.0 to 9.3? Bruno Busco sent the following on 2/22/2009 2:59 AM: Well, the unresolved issues scheduled for 9.3 are: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=truepid=12310500fixfor=12313602resolution=-1sorter/field=issuekeysorter/order=DESC OFBIZ-2133 has a patch ready and is actually waiting for a review. -Bruno 2009/2/22 BJ Freeman bjf...@free-man.net: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=truepid=12310500fixfor=12313602 it say release Branch 9.3 so no 5,6,7, or 8 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFJoTsArP3NbaWWqE4RAnAJAJwL2QBJ5qohvu0DQGY1vKErTrZsQQCfYO3V R5s/zYI6xl/TJWO7Q4oOAZg= =Zgcv -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: New Release Branch
I think we will use the SVN revision for that. 2009/2/22 BJ Freeman bjf...@free-man.net: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 interesting. so how do you denote a minor release or update? Bruno Busco sent the following on 2/22/2009 3:35 AM: Sorry, I did not understand your real question. We have decided to use a release numbering scheme similar to UBUNTU. 9.3 means March 2009 -Bruno 2009/2/22 BJ Freeman bjf...@free-man.net: so why did ofbiz jump from 4.0 to 9.3? Bruno Busco sent the following on 2/22/2009 2:59 AM: Well, the unresolved issues scheduled for 9.3 are: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=truepid=12310500fixfor=12313602resolution=-1sorter/field=issuekeysorter/order=DESC OFBIZ-2133 has a patch ready and is actually waiting for a review. -Bruno 2009/2/22 BJ Freeman bjf...@free-man.net: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=truepid=12310500fixfor=12313602 it say release Branch 9.3 so no 5,6,7, or 8 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFJoTsArP3NbaWWqE4RAnAJAJwL2QBJ5qohvu0DQGY1vKErTrZsQQCfYO3V R5s/zYI6xl/TJWO7Q4oOAZg= =Zgcv -END PGP SIGNATURE-
quick ship order cause deadlock
I encountered the following deadlock when I tried to quick ship an entire order. The server environment are as bellows: psql (PostgreSQL) 7.4.19 2.6.9-42.0.3.EL #1 Mon Sep 25 17:14:19 EDT 2006 i686 athlon i386 GNU/Linux java version 1.5.0_06 ofbiz4.0 Please note that the order is the only order in the system. Attached bellow are db locks and ofbiz log. There may not be enough information to pinpoint the cause of the problem by examining the following logs. But please let me know if you have seen similar problem like this before. 1. object locks sort by name. nothing suspecious from here. relname| relation | database | transaction | pid | mode | granted ---+--+--+-+--+--+- contact_mech | 2644120 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t content | 2644156 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t data_resource | 2644335 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t entity_sync_remove| 2644501 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t entity_sync_remove| 2644501 | 2643821 | | 9483 | RowExclusiveLock | t facility | 2644547 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t facility | 2644547 | 2643821 | | 9483 | RowShareLock | t facility_contact_mech_purpose | 2644563 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t inventory_item| 2644829 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t inventory_item| 2644829 | 2643821 | | 9483 | RowShareLock | t item_issuance | 2644925 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t item_issuance | 2644925 | 2643821 | | 9483 | RowShareLock | t item_issuance | 2644925 | 2643821 | | 9483 | RowExclusiveLock | t item_issuance_role| 2644929 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t item_issuance_role| 2644929 | 2643821 | | 9483 | RowExclusiveLock | t job_sandbox | 2644933 | 2643821 | | 9535 | AccessShareLock | t job_sandbox | 2644933 | 2643821 | | 9535 | RowExclusiveLock | t note_data | 2644988 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t order_adjustment | 2645019 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t order_contact_mech| 2645051 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t order_header | 2645067 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t order_header | 2645067 | 2643821 | | 9483 | RowShareLock | t order_header | 2645067 | 2643821 | | 9483 | RowExclusiveLock | t order_item| 2645079 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t order_item| 2645079 | 2643821 | | 9483 | RowShareLock | t order_item| 2645079 | 2643821 | | 9483 | RowExclusiveLock | t order_item_ship_group | 2645115 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t order_item_ship_group_assoc | 2645119 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t order_item_ship_grp_inv_res | 2645123 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t order_item_ship_grp_inv_res | 2645123 | 2643821 | | 9483 | RowExclusiveLock | t order_role| 2645147 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t order_shipment| 2645151 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t order_status | 2645155 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t order_status | 2645155 | 2643821 | | 9483 | RowExclusiveLock | t party | 2645186 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t party | 2645186 | 2643821 | | 9483 | RowShareLock | t party_contact_mech| 2645217 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t party_role| 2645293 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t party_role| 2645293 | 2643821 | | 9483 | RowShareLock | t party_role| 2645293 | 2643821 | | 9483 | RowExclusiveLock | t pg_class | 1259 | 2643821 | | 9660 | AccessShareLock | t pg_locks |16759 | 2643821 | | 9660 | AccessShareLock | t pk_user_login | 2646560 | 2643821 | | 9535 | AccessShareLock | t postal_address
Re: quick ship order cause deadlock
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 not sure ofbiz 4.0 will run on 1.5. would check the proper driver for PostgreSQL 7.4.19 are being used in ofbiz looks like a loop after the first warning [ServiceEcaCondition.java:127:WARN ] From Field (communicationEventId) is not found in context for createWorkEffort, defaulting to null. Hansen Wang sent the following on 2/22/2009 3:57 AM: I encountered the following deadlock when I tried to quick ship an entire order. The server environment are as bellows: psql (PostgreSQL) 7.4.19 2.6.9-42.0.3.EL #1 Mon Sep 25 17:14:19 EDT 2006 i686 athlon i386 GNU/Linux java version 1.5.0_06 ofbiz4.0 Please note that the order is the only order in the system. Attached bellow are db locks and ofbiz log. There may not be enough information to pinpoint the cause of the problem by examining the following logs. But please let me know if you have seen similar problem like this before. 1. object locks sort by name. nothing suspecious from here. relname| relation | database | transaction | pid | mode | granted ---+--+--+-+--+--+- contact_mech | 2644120 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t content | 2644156 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t data_resource | 2644335 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t entity_sync_remove| 2644501 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t entity_sync_remove| 2644501 | 2643821 | | 9483 | RowExclusiveLock | t facility | 2644547 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t facility | 2644547 | 2643821 | | 9483 | RowShareLock | t facility_contact_mech_purpose | 2644563 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t inventory_item| 2644829 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t inventory_item| 2644829 | 2643821 | | 9483 | RowShareLock | t item_issuance | 2644925 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t item_issuance | 2644925 | 2643821 | | 9483 | RowShareLock | t item_issuance | 2644925 | 2643821 | | 9483 | RowExclusiveLock | t item_issuance_role| 2644929 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t item_issuance_role| 2644929 | 2643821 | | 9483 | RowExclusiveLock | t job_sandbox | 2644933 | 2643821 | | 9535 | AccessShareLock | t job_sandbox | 2644933 | 2643821 | | 9535 | RowExclusiveLock | t note_data | 2644988 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t order_adjustment | 2645019 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t order_contact_mech| 2645051 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t order_header | 2645067 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t order_header | 2645067 | 2643821 | | 9483 | RowShareLock | t order_header | 2645067 | 2643821 | | 9483 | RowExclusiveLock | t order_item| 2645079 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t order_item| 2645079 | 2643821 | | 9483 | RowShareLock | t order_item| 2645079 | 2643821 | | 9483 | RowExclusiveLock | t order_item_ship_group | 2645115 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t order_item_ship_group_assoc | 2645119 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t order_item_ship_grp_inv_res | 2645123 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t order_item_ship_grp_inv_res | 2645123 | 2643821 | | 9483 | RowExclusiveLock | t order_role| 2645147 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t order_shipment| 2645151 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t order_status | 2645155 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t order_status | 2645155 | 2643821 | | 9483 | RowExclusiveLock | t party | 2645186 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t party | 2645186 | 2643821 | | 9483 | RowShareLock | t party_contact_mech| 2645217 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t party_role| 2645293 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t
Re: quick ship order cause deadlock
The same configuration and data work fine in windows. Only difference is that I have a newer version of postgreSQL (8.4) in windows. I tried to run it with 1.6 with jdbc4, still no difference that 1.5 with jdbc3. I tried to make sendOrderCompleteNotification (invoked by eca of changeOrderStatus to COMPLETED) run as syn. see some improvement that it gets to the point of sending the email and creating communication event. I tried to remove sendOrderCompleteNotification from the above eca. it works. So ther problem is between sendOrderCompletedNotification (after inserting communication event) and the rest. Given my time constraints, I do not think that I will be able to find and resolve the deadlock problem in java level given the code is relative stable and many projects are using it. What I would like to do is just want to get around it by either changing the server env or re-arranging the executinon sequnce. Any advise is appreciated. On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 5:12 AM, BJ Freeman bjf...@free-man.net wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 not sure ofbiz 4.0 will run on 1.5. would check the proper driver for PostgreSQL 7.4.19 are being used in ofbiz looks like a loop after the first warning [ServiceEcaCondition.java:127:WARN ] From Field (communicationEventId) is not found in context for createWorkEffort, defaulting to null. Hansen Wang sent the following on 2/22/2009 3:57 AM: I encountered the following deadlock when I tried to quick ship an entire order. The server environment are as bellows: psql (PostgreSQL) 7.4.19 2.6.9-42.0.3.EL #1 Mon Sep 25 17:14:19 EDT 2006 i686 athlon i386 GNU/Linux java version 1.5.0_06 ofbiz4.0 Please note that the order is the only order in the system. Attached bellow are db locks and ofbiz log. There may not be enough information to pinpoint the cause of the problem by examining the following logs. But please let me know if you have seen similar problem like this before. 1. object locks sort by name. nothing suspecious from here. relname| relation | database | transaction | pid | mode | granted ---+--+--+-+--+--+- contact_mech | 2644120 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t content | 2644156 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t data_resource | 2644335 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t entity_sync_remove| 2644501 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t entity_sync_remove| 2644501 | 2643821 | | 9483 | RowExclusiveLock | t facility | 2644547 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t facility | 2644547 | 2643821 | | 9483 | RowShareLock | t facility_contact_mech_purpose | 2644563 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t inventory_item| 2644829 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t inventory_item| 2644829 | 2643821 | | 9483 | RowShareLock | t item_issuance | 2644925 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t item_issuance | 2644925 | 2643821 | | 9483 | RowShareLock | t item_issuance | 2644925 | 2643821 | | 9483 | RowExclusiveLock | t item_issuance_role| 2644929 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t item_issuance_role| 2644929 | 2643821 | | 9483 | RowExclusiveLock | t job_sandbox | 2644933 | 2643821 | | 9535 | AccessShareLock | t job_sandbox | 2644933 | 2643821 | | 9535 | RowExclusiveLock | t note_data | 2644988 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t order_adjustment | 2645019 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t order_contact_mech| 2645051 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t order_header | 2645067 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t order_header | 2645067 | 2643821 | | 9483 | RowShareLock | t order_header | 2645067 | 2643821 | | 9483 | RowExclusiveLock | t order_item| 2645079 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t order_item| 2645079 | 2643821 | | 9483 | RowShareLock | t order_item| 2645079 | 2643821 | | 9483 | RowExclusiveLock | t order_item_ship_group | 2645115 | 2643821 |
Re: Service Interaction Question
Brian You can define a request map in the controller that calls an event. Here is an example of how I use this. We have a form on our website that is static html (it is not rendered by OFiz.) But the form action calls an OFBiz URL, for example: http://www.globalera.com/ge/control/webFormSubmit The controller in our custom component calls an event, which we have created as a service. Our service is mostly a wrapper that calls the createLead service. Upon success the controller just redirects back to a thank you page on our website. So OFBiz never handles the view, just accepts the request, calls a service, and redirects. Hope this helps. - Original Message - From: Brian Sanders bsand...@connextions.com To: user@ofbiz.apache.org Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 2:40:38 PM (GMT-0700) America/Denver Subject: Service Interaction Question Is it possible to make it so that I can post data to a service without having to encapsulate the body in a SOAP envelope? I know that the .Net framework supports it, so it's obviously feasible. Thanks. Brian Sanders Application Support Analyst
Using Axis w/ OFBiz
Hi.
I am trying to expose services in OFBiz through Axis2 deployed in the same
container. Basically I am trying to use a Symfony front-end to make SOAP
calls to perform functions such as adding an item to a shopping cart or
retrieving shopping cart contents. I am doing this by writing a few (what I
thought would be) simple SOAP services in Axis to accomplish this.
But I am having a lot of problems and haven’t found much in the mailing list
archives or on the forums which helps.
I am able to call the SOAP services, the problem is using the OFBiz
internals within the services. For instance, calling
ShoppingCartEvents.getCartObject() always returns a null pointer. Perhaps I
am just looking in the wrong place.
Could anyone steer me in the direction of how I would go about creating and
then adding a product/item to a shopping cart and getting its contents?
This is the current code I have:
public String addItemToCart( String productId )
{
MessageContext msgCtx =
MessageContext.getCurrentMessageContext();
HttpServletRequest request = (HttpServletRequest)
msgCtx.getProperty(
transport.http.servletRequest );
Locale locale = UtilHttp.getLocale(request);
ShoppingCart shoppingCart = ShoppingCartEvents.getCartObject(
request,
locale, USD );
return (String) shoppingCart.getOrderType();
}
Thanks!
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Using-Axis-w--OFBiz-tp22150583p22150583.html
Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: quick ship order cause deadlock
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 from the logs you don't have a DB deadlock problem but the EEAS is failing. so the question is why is not the data being passed. the only other thing different is permissions. possibly not enough memory. Hansen Wang sent the following on 2/22/2009 11:24 AM: The same configuration and data work fine in windows. Only difference is that I have a newer version of postgreSQL (8.4) in windows. I tried to run it with 1.6 with jdbc4, still no difference that 1.5 with jdbc3. I tried to make sendOrderCompleteNotification (invoked by eca of changeOrderStatus to COMPLETED) run as syn. see some improvement that it gets to the point of sending the email and creating communication event. I tried to remove sendOrderCompleteNotification from the above eca. it works. So ther problem is between sendOrderCompletedNotification (after inserting communication event) and the rest. Given my time constraints, I do not think that I will be able to find and resolve the deadlock problem in java level given the code is relative stable and many projects are using it. What I would like to do is just want to get around it by either changing the server env or re-arranging the executinon sequnce. Any advise is appreciated. On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 5:12 AM, BJ Freeman bjf...@free-man.net wrote: not sure ofbiz 4.0 will run on 1.5. would check the proper driver for PostgreSQL 7.4.19 are being used in ofbiz looks like a loop after the first warning [ServiceEcaCondition.java:127:WARN ] From Field (communicationEventId) is not found in context for createWorkEffort, defaulting to null. Hansen Wang sent the following on 2/22/2009 3:57 AM: I encountered the following deadlock when I tried to quick ship an entire order. The server environment are as bellows: psql (PostgreSQL) 7.4.19 2.6.9-42.0.3.EL #1 Mon Sep 25 17:14:19 EDT 2006 i686 athlon i386 GNU/Linux java version 1.5.0_06 ofbiz4.0 Please note that the order is the only order in the system. Attached bellow are db locks and ofbiz log. There may not be enough information to pinpoint the cause of the problem by examining the following logs. But please let me know if you have seen similar problem like this before. 1. object locks sort by name. nothing suspecious from here. relname| relation | database | transaction | pid | mode | granted ---+--+--+-+--+--+- contact_mech | 2644120 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t content | 2644156 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t data_resource | 2644335 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t entity_sync_remove| 2644501 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t entity_sync_remove| 2644501 | 2643821 | | 9483 | RowExclusiveLock | t facility | 2644547 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t facility | 2644547 | 2643821 | | 9483 | RowShareLock | t facility_contact_mech_purpose | 2644563 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t inventory_item| 2644829 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t inventory_item| 2644829 | 2643821 | | 9483 | RowShareLock | t item_issuance | 2644925 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t item_issuance | 2644925 | 2643821 | | 9483 | RowShareLock | t item_issuance | 2644925 | 2643821 | | 9483 | RowExclusiveLock | t item_issuance_role| 2644929 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t item_issuance_role| 2644929 | 2643821 | | 9483 | RowExclusiveLock | t job_sandbox | 2644933 | 2643821 | | 9535 | AccessShareLock | t job_sandbox | 2644933 | 2643821 | | 9535 | RowExclusiveLock | t note_data | 2644988 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t order_adjustment | 2645019 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t order_contact_mech| 2645051 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t order_header | 2645067 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t order_header | 2645067 | 2643821 | | 9483 | RowShareLock | t order_header | 2645067 | 2643821 | | 9483 | RowExclusiveLock | t order_item| 2645079 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t order_item| 2645079 | 2643821 |
Re: Creating a record in database
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 what does the logs say what version of ofbiz are you using hairi007 sent the following on 2/22/2009 10:23 AM: (ofBiz newbie) Hi guys, im using a service to create a record in a database All tehe required datas are keyed in a textfield service.xml service name=createCustRequest engine=simple default-entity-name=CustRequest location=org/ofbiz/order/request/CustRequestServices.xml invoke=createCustRequest auth=true descriptionCreate a custRequest record and optionally create a custRequest item./description attribute name=custRequestId type=String mode=IN optional=true/ attribute name=fromPartyId type=String mode=IN optional=true/ attribute name=custRequestDate type=String mode=IN optional=true/ attribute name=statusId type=String mode=IN optional=true/ /service and the simple method simple-method method-name=createCustRequest short-description=Create Customer Request make-value value-field=newEntity entity-name=CustRequest/ set-nonpk-fields map=parameters value-field=newEntity/ set from-field=fromPartyId field=newEntity.fromPartyId/ set from-field=custRequestDate field=newEntity.custRequestDate/ set from-field=statusId field=newEntity.statusId/ sequenced-id sequence-name=CustRequest field=custRequestId/ to-string field-name=custRequestId/ set from-field=custRequestId field=newEntity.custRequestId/ create-value value-field=newEntity/ field-to-result field=custRequestId map-name=newEntity/ /simple-method When i click submit it shows success,however the new record is not reflected on my DB when i check ed it from webtools..Need your help ..thnx! :) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFJobGwrP3NbaWWqE4RAueVAJ9AG4MQ2atVXg4GfwKe8lMYnU446ACgm28u fnN8eVg5AIJ1SMJnv2pp5bM= =BiVE -END PGP SIGNATURE-
demo site messed up
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 https://demo.hotwaxmedia.com/webtools/control/main something about ecommerceNoproductstore EASY FLEXIBLE ROBUST Expression catalogQuickaddUse is undefined on line 99, column 16 in component://multiflex/includes/header.ftl. The problematic instruction: - -- == if catalogQuickaddUse [on line 99, column 11 in component://multiflex/includes/header.ftl] -- Java backtrace for programmers: -- freemarker.core.InvalidReferenceException: Expression catalogQuickaddUse is undefined on line 99, column 16 in component://multiflex/includes/header.ftl. at freemarker.core.TemplateObject.assertNonNull(TemplateObject.java:124) at freemarker.core.Expression.isTrue(Expression.java:145) at freemarker.core.ConditionalBlock.accept(ConditionalBlock.java:77) at freemarker.core.Environment.visit(Environment.java:209) at freemarker.core.MixedContent.accept(MixedContent.java:92) at freemarker.core.Environment.visit(Environment.java:209) at freemarker.core.Environment.process(Environment.java:189) at org.ofbiz.base.util.template.FreeMarkerWorker.renderTemplate(FreeMarkerWorker.java:205) at -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFJobLvrP3NbaWWqE4RAt3nAJ9IMYFdBybubAwIfk+R9Z6JeCmFgwCggI/S UL/xHhFssDrnPiKUQjd0/yg= =pLL6 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: demo site messed up
I think this is what happened: When accessing a webapp that does not defines the WebSiteId parameter in its web.xml file the VisualThemeLookup allows to choose between ALL themes. At the moment the webtools application does not defines the WebSiteId and so it is possible to select an ecommerce VisualTheme for the backoffice resulting in what you have seen. I entered the demo bakoffice with flexadmin and it was OK then deleted the admin VisualTheme UserPreferences that was set on multiflex (a theme for ecommerce). Now it works correctly. I think we should have that the VisualThemeLookup will default in an empty list if no WebSiteId is defined. -Bruno 2009/2/22 BJ Freeman bjf...@free-man.net: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 https://demo.hotwaxmedia.com/webtools/control/main something about ecommerceNoproductstore EASY FLEXIBLE ROBUST Expression catalogQuickaddUse is undefined on line 99, column 16 in component://multiflex/includes/header.ftl. The problematic instruction: - -- == if catalogQuickaddUse [on line 99, column 11 in component://multiflex/includes/header.ftl] -- Java backtrace for programmers: -- freemarker.core.InvalidReferenceException: Expression catalogQuickaddUse is undefined on line 99, column 16 in component://multiflex/includes/header.ftl. at freemarker.core.TemplateObject.assertNonNull(TemplateObject.java:124) at freemarker.core.Expression.isTrue(Expression.java:145) at freemarker.core.ConditionalBlock.accept(ConditionalBlock.java:77) at freemarker.core.Environment.visit(Environment.java:209) at freemarker.core.MixedContent.accept(MixedContent.java:92) at freemarker.core.Environment.visit(Environment.java:209) at freemarker.core.Environment.process(Environment.java:189) at org.ofbiz.base.util.template.FreeMarkerWorker.renderTemplate(FreeMarkerWorker.java:205) at -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFJobLvrP3NbaWWqE4RAt3nAJ9IMYFdBybubAwIfk+R9Z6JeCmFgwCggI/S UL/xHhFssDrnPiKUQjd0/yg= =pLL6 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: demo site messed up
Patch attached to OFBIZ-2203 fixes this. -Bruno 2009/2/22 Bruno Busco bruno.bu...@gmail.com: I think this is what happened: When accessing a webapp that does not defines the WebSiteId parameter in its web.xml file the VisualThemeLookup allows to choose between ALL themes. At the moment the webtools application does not defines the WebSiteId and so it is possible to select an ecommerce VisualTheme for the backoffice resulting in what you have seen. I entered the demo bakoffice with flexadmin and it was OK then deleted the admin VisualTheme UserPreferences that was set on multiflex (a theme for ecommerce). Now it works correctly. I think we should have that the VisualThemeLookup will default in an empty list if no WebSiteId is defined. -Bruno 2009/2/22 BJ Freeman bjf...@free-man.net: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 https://demo.hotwaxmedia.com/webtools/control/main something about ecommerceNoproductstore EASY FLEXIBLE ROBUST Expression catalogQuickaddUse is undefined on line 99, column 16 in component://multiflex/includes/header.ftl. The problematic instruction: - -- == if catalogQuickaddUse [on line 99, column 11 in component://multiflex/includes/header.ftl] -- Java backtrace for programmers: -- freemarker.core.InvalidReferenceException: Expression catalogQuickaddUse is undefined on line 99, column 16 in component://multiflex/includes/header.ftl. at freemarker.core.TemplateObject.assertNonNull(TemplateObject.java:124) at freemarker.core.Expression.isTrue(Expression.java:145) at freemarker.core.ConditionalBlock.accept(ConditionalBlock.java:77) at freemarker.core.Environment.visit(Environment.java:209) at freemarker.core.MixedContent.accept(MixedContent.java:92) at freemarker.core.Environment.visit(Environment.java:209) at freemarker.core.Environment.process(Environment.java:189) at org.ofbiz.base.util.template.FreeMarkerWorker.renderTemplate(FreeMarkerWorker.java:205) at -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFJobLvrP3NbaWWqE4RAt3nAJ9IMYFdBybubAwIfk+R9Z6JeCmFgwCggI/S UL/xHhFssDrnPiKUQjd0/yg= =pLL6 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: quick ship order cause deadlock
I can confirm that this is not caused by low memory. I have been monitoring the memory and there are not such signs. I believe it is a combination of the code and the database server I am running with. Does any body use this combination (jdk1.5/1.6 + psql (PostgreSQL) 7.4.19 + redhat dedora 2.6.9-42.0.3.EL)? I will try to change or upgrade the database. Thanks. On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 1:03 PM, BJ Freeman bjf...@free-man.net wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 from the logs you don't have a DB deadlock problem but the EEAS is failing. so the question is why is not the data being passed. the only other thing different is permissions. possibly not enough memory. Hansen Wang sent the following on 2/22/2009 11:24 AM: The same configuration and data work fine in windows. Only difference is that I have a newer version of postgreSQL (8.4) in windows. I tried to run it with 1.6 with jdbc4, still no difference that 1.5 with jdbc3. I tried to make sendOrderCompleteNotification (invoked by eca of changeOrderStatus to COMPLETED) run as syn. see some improvement that it gets to the point of sending the email and creating communication event. I tried to remove sendOrderCompleteNotification from the above eca. it works. So ther problem is between sendOrderCompletedNotification (after inserting communication event) and the rest. Given my time constraints, I do not think that I will be able to find and resolve the deadlock problem in java level given the code is relative stable and many projects are using it. What I would like to do is just want to get around it by either changing the server env or re-arranging the executinon sequnce. Any advise is appreciated. On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 5:12 AM, BJ Freeman bjf...@free-man.net wrote: not sure ofbiz 4.0 will run on 1.5. would check the proper driver for PostgreSQL 7.4.19 are being used in ofbiz looks like a loop after the first warning [ServiceEcaCondition.java:127:WARN ] From Field (communicationEventId) is not found in context for createWorkEffort, defaulting to null. Hansen Wang sent the following on 2/22/2009 3:57 AM: I encountered the following deadlock when I tried to quick ship an entire order. The server environment are as bellows: psql (PostgreSQL) 7.4.19 2.6.9-42.0.3.EL #1 Mon Sep 25 17:14:19 EDT 2006 i686 athlon i386 GNU/Linux java version 1.5.0_06 ofbiz4.0 Please note that the order is the only order in the system. Attached bellow are db locks and ofbiz log. There may not be enough information to pinpoint the cause of the problem by examining the following logs. But please let me know if you have seen similar problem like this before. 1. object locks sort by name. nothing suspecious from here. relname| relation | database | transaction | pid | mode | granted ---+--+--+-+--+--+- contact_mech | 2644120 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t content | 2644156 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t data_resource | 2644335 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t entity_sync_remove| 2644501 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t entity_sync_remove| 2644501 | 2643821 | | 9483 | RowExclusiveLock | t facility | 2644547 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t facility | 2644547 | 2643821 | | 9483 | RowShareLock | t facility_contact_mech_purpose | 2644563 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t inventory_item| 2644829 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t inventory_item| 2644829 | 2643821 | | 9483 | RowShareLock | t item_issuance | 2644925 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t item_issuance | 2644925 | 2643821 | | 9483 | RowShareLock | t item_issuance | 2644925 | 2643821 | | 9483 | RowExclusiveLock | t item_issuance_role| 2644929 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t item_issuance_role| 2644929 | 2643821 | | 9483 | RowExclusiveLock | t job_sandbox | 2644933 | 2643821 | | 9535 | AccessShareLock | t job_sandbox | 2644933 | 2643821 | | 9535 | RowExclusiveLock | t note_data | 2644988 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t order_adjustment | 2645019 | 2643821 | | 9483 |
Re: quick ship order cause deadlock
jdbc is either postgresql-8.3-604.jdbc4.jar (jdbc4 for jdk1.6) or postgresql-8.3-604.jdbc3.jar (jdbc3 for jdk1.5). On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 2:55 PM, Hansen Wang han...@gemmall.com wrote: I can confirm that this is not caused by low memory. I have been monitoring the memory and there are not such signs. I believe it is a combination of the code and the database server I am running with. Does any body use this combination (jdk1.5/1.6 + psql (PostgreSQL) 7.4.19 + redhat dedora 2.6.9-42.0.3.EL)? I will try to change or upgrade the database. Thanks. On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 1:03 PM, BJ Freeman bjf...@free-man.net wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 from the logs you don't have a DB deadlock problem but the EEAS is failing. so the question is why is not the data being passed. the only other thing different is permissions. possibly not enough memory. Hansen Wang sent the following on 2/22/2009 11:24 AM: The same configuration and data work fine in windows. Only difference is that I have a newer version of postgreSQL (8.4) in windows. I tried to run it with 1.6 with jdbc4, still no difference that 1.5 with jdbc3. I tried to make sendOrderCompleteNotification (invoked by eca of changeOrderStatus to COMPLETED) run as syn. see some improvement that it gets to the point of sending the email and creating communication event. I tried to remove sendOrderCompleteNotification from the above eca. it works. So ther problem is between sendOrderCompletedNotification (after inserting communication event) and the rest. Given my time constraints, I do not think that I will be able to find and resolve the deadlock problem in java level given the code is relative stable and many projects are using it. What I would like to do is just want to get around it by either changing the server env or re-arranging the executinon sequnce. Any advise is appreciated. On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 5:12 AM, BJ Freeman bjf...@free-man.net wrote: not sure ofbiz 4.0 will run on 1.5. would check the proper driver for PostgreSQL 7.4.19 are being used in ofbiz looks like a loop after the first warning [ServiceEcaCondition.java:127:WARN ] From Field (communicationEventId) is not found in context for createWorkEffort, defaulting to null. Hansen Wang sent the following on 2/22/2009 3:57 AM: I encountered the following deadlock when I tried to quick ship an entire order. The server environment are as bellows: psql (PostgreSQL) 7.4.19 2.6.9-42.0.3.EL #1 Mon Sep 25 17:14:19 EDT 2006 i686 athlon i386 GNU/Linux java version 1.5.0_06 ofbiz4.0 Please note that the order is the only order in the system. Attached bellow are db locks and ofbiz log. There may not be enough information to pinpoint the cause of the problem by examining the following logs. But please let me know if you have seen similar problem like this before. 1. object locks sort by name. nothing suspecious from here. relname| relation | database | transaction | pid | mode | granted ---+--+--+-+--+--+- contact_mech | 2644120 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t content | 2644156 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t data_resource | 2644335 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t entity_sync_remove| 2644501 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t entity_sync_remove| 2644501 | 2643821 | | 9483 | RowExclusiveLock | t facility | 2644547 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t facility | 2644547 | 2643821 | | 9483 | RowShareLock | t facility_contact_mech_purpose | 2644563 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t inventory_item| 2644829 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t inventory_item| 2644829 | 2643821 | | 9483 | RowShareLock | t item_issuance | 2644925 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t item_issuance | 2644925 | 2643821 | | 9483 | RowShareLock | t item_issuance | 2644925 | 2643821 | | 9483 | RowExclusiveLock | t item_issuance_role| 2644929 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t item_issuance_role| 2644929 | 2643821 | | 9483 | RowExclusiveLock | t job_sandbox | 2644933 | 2643821 | | 9535 | AccessShareLock | t job_sandbox | 2644933 | 2643821 | | 9535 |
Re: Using Axis w/ OFBiz
If you're running in-container, why use web services?
As for the ShoppingCartEvents.getCartObject() method... is the request
you are passing to it in the web session of the user? No, it is in the
web session of the SOAP service...
-David
On Feb 22, 2009, at 12:36 PM, atoner wrote:
Hi.
I am trying to expose services in OFBiz through Axis2 deployed in
the same
container. Basically I am trying to use a Symfony front-end to make
SOAP
calls to perform functions such as adding an item to a shopping cart
or
retrieving shopping cart contents. I am doing this by writing a few
(what I
thought would be) simple SOAP services in Axis to accomplish this.
But I am having a lot of problems and haven’t found much in the
mailing list
archives or on the forums which helps.
I am able to call the SOAP services, the problem is using the OFBiz
internals within the services. For instance, calling
ShoppingCartEvents.getCartObject() always returns a null pointer.
Perhaps I
am just looking in the wrong place.
Could anyone steer me in the direction of how I would go about
creating and
then adding a product/item to a shopping cart and getting its
contents?
This is the current code I have:
public String addItemToCart( String productId )
{
MessageContext msgCtx =
MessageContext.getCurrentMessageContext();
HttpServletRequest request = (HttpServletRequest)
msgCtx.getProperty(
transport.http.servletRequest );
Locale locale = UtilHttp.getLocale(request);
ShoppingCart shoppingCart =
ShoppingCartEvents.getCartObject( request,
locale, USD );
return (String) shoppingCart.getOrderType();
}
Thanks!
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Using-Axis-w--OFBiz-tp22150583p22150583.html
Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Using Axis w/ OFBiz
David - we are running Axis within the OFBiz container to have access natively
to OFBiz services. We are not using OFBiz to render the UI. Basically we want
to consume all the ecommerce functionality, but do it thru web services so we
can build our interface using PHP.
- Original Message -
From: David E Jones david.jo...@hotwaxmedia.com
To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2009 4:51:16 PM (GMT-0700) America/Denver
Subject: Re: Using Axis w/ OFBiz
If you're running in-container, why use web services?
As for the ShoppingCartEvents.getCartObject() method... is the request
you are passing to it in the web session of the user? No, it is in the
web session of the SOAP service...
-David
On Feb 22, 2009, at 12:36 PM, atoner wrote:
Hi.
I am trying to expose services in OFBiz through Axis2 deployed in
the same
container. Basically I am trying to use a Symfony front-end to make
SOAP
calls to perform functions such as adding an item to a shopping cart
or
retrieving shopping cart contents. I am doing this by writing a few
(what I
thought would be) simple SOAP services in Axis to accomplish this.
But I am having a lot of problems and haven’t found much in the
mailing list
archives or on the forums which helps.
I am able to call the SOAP services, the problem is using the OFBiz
internals within the services. For instance, calling
ShoppingCartEvents.getCartObject() always returns a null pointer.
Perhaps I
am just looking in the wrong place.
Could anyone steer me in the direction of how I would go about
creating and
then adding a product/item to a shopping cart and getting its
contents?
This is the current code I have:
public String addItemToCart( String productId )
{
MessageContext msgCtx = MessageContext.getCurrentMessageContext();
HttpServletRequest request = (HttpServletRequest)
msgCtx.getProperty(
transport.http.servletRequest );
Locale locale = UtilHttp.getLocale(request);
ShoppingCart shoppingCart =
ShoppingCartEvents.getCartObject( request,
locale, USD );
return (String) shoppingCart.getOrderType();
}
Thanks!
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Using-Axis-w--OFBiz-tp22150583p22150583.html
Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Creating a record in database
hello, Put all log messages that you are getting on terminal so that anyone can help you :-) Regards Ravindra Mandre hairi007 wrote: (ofBiz newbie) Hi guys, im using a service to create a record in a database All tehe required datas are keyed in a textfield service.xml service name=createCustRequest engine=simple default-entity-name=CustRequest location=org/ofbiz/order/request/CustRequestServices.xml invoke=createCustRequest auth=true descriptionCreate a custRequest record and optionally create a custRequest item./description attribute name=custRequestId type=String mode=IN optional=true/ attribute name=fromPartyId type=String mode=IN optional=true/ attribute name=custRequestDate type=String mode=IN optional=true/ attribute name=statusId type=String mode=IN optional=true/ /service and the simple method simple-method method-name=createCustRequest short-description=Create Customer Request make-value value-field=newEntity entity-name=CustRequest/ set-nonpk-fields map=parameters value-field=newEntity/ set from-field=fromPartyId field=newEntity.fromPartyId/ set from-field=custRequestDate field=newEntity.custRequestDate/ set from-field=statusId field=newEntity.statusId/ sequenced-id sequence-name=CustRequest field=custRequestId/ to-string field-name=custRequestId/ set from-field=custRequestId field=newEntity.custRequestId/ create-value value-field=newEntity/ field-to-result field=custRequestId map-name=newEntity/ /simple-method When i click submit it shows success,however the new record is not reflected on my DB when i check ed it from webtools..Need your help ..thnx! :)
Re: Creating a record in database
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 what does the logs say what version of ofbiz are you using How do i check which version? Anyways I've just download the files for development about 1 mth ago. Thnx -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Creating-a-record-in-database-tp22149825p22155204.html Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: New Release Branch
In Ubuntu world they use LTS concept (Long Time Support) which means 5 (yes five!) years of guaranteed support on these specific versions (there are already 2 of them : 6.06 and 8.04). Of course OFBiz is not an OS and I think we will never support a release 5 years (how could we do with the lack of manpower we still have despite of all wonderful efforts we have seen taking place since the beginning of this project). So I guess we will simply have releases (or versions, like 9.3, but I guess we will postpone its release, hence the number will change) and the trunk as it's already done. In one word a version will be either trunk.releaseNumber either versionNumber.releaseNumber (like 9.3.99) Note that the footer shows already this information if you run the ant svninfo target after your build If we are all ok with this description (David?) I could add this to http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/Release+Plan And I think we should at least update title in http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBIZ/OFBiz+4.X+and+5.0 HTH Jacques From: BJ Freeman bjf...@free-man.net -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 interesting. so how do you denote a minor release or update? Bruno Busco sent the following on 2/22/2009 3:35 AM: Sorry, I did not understand your real question. We have decided to use a release numbering scheme similar to UBUNTU. 9.3 means March 2009 -Bruno 2009/2/22 BJ Freeman bjf...@free-man.net: so why did ofbiz jump from 4.0 to 9.3? Bruno Busco sent the following on 2/22/2009 2:59 AM: Well, the unresolved issues scheduled for 9.3 are: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=truepid=12310500fixfor=12313602resolution=-1sorter/field=issuekeysorter/order=DESC OFBIZ-2133 has a patch ready and is actually waiting for a review. -Bruno 2009/2/22 BJ Freeman bjf...@free-man.net: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=truepid=12310500fixfor=12313602 it say release Branch 9.3 so no 5,6,7, or 8 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFJoTsArP3NbaWWqE4RAnAJAJwL2QBJ5qohvu0DQGY1vKErTrZsQQCfYO3V R5s/zYI6xl/TJWO7Q4oOAZg= =Zgcv -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: quick ship order cause deadlock
Please try to use the lastest version of Postgres and the problem should dissapear. Also why are you using a so old Kernel version ? Jacques From: Hansen Wang han...@gemmall.com The same configuration and data work fine in windows. Only difference is that I have a newer version of postgreSQL (8.4) in windows. I tried to run it with 1.6 with jdbc4, still no difference that 1.5 with jdbc3. I tried to make sendOrderCompleteNotification (invoked by eca of changeOrderStatus to COMPLETED) run as syn. see some improvement that it gets to the point of sending the email and creating communication event. I tried to remove sendOrderCompleteNotification from the above eca. it works. So ther problem is between sendOrderCompletedNotification (after inserting communication event) and the rest. Given my time constraints, I do not think that I will be able to find and resolve the deadlock problem in java level given the code is relative stable and many projects are using it. What I would like to do is just want to get around it by either changing the server env or re-arranging the executinon sequnce. Any advise is appreciated. On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 5:12 AM, BJ Freeman bjf...@free-man.net wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 not sure ofbiz 4.0 will run on 1.5. would check the proper driver for PostgreSQL 7.4.19 are being used in ofbiz looks like a loop after the first warning [ServiceEcaCondition.java:127:WARN ] From Field (communicationEventId) is not found in context for createWorkEffort, defaulting to null. Hansen Wang sent the following on 2/22/2009 3:57 AM: I encountered the following deadlock when I tried to quick ship an entire order. The server environment are as bellows: psql (PostgreSQL) 7.4.19 2.6.9-42.0.3.EL #1 Mon Sep 25 17:14:19 EDT 2006 i686 athlon i386 GNU/Linux java version 1.5.0_06 ofbiz4.0 Please note that the order is the only order in the system. Attached bellow are db locks and ofbiz log. There may not be enough information to pinpoint the cause of the problem by examining the following logs. But please let me know if you have seen similar problem like this before. 1. object locks sort by name. nothing suspecious from here. relname| relation | database | transaction | pid | mode | granted ---+--+--+-+--+--+- contact_mech | 2644120 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t content | 2644156 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t data_resource | 2644335 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t entity_sync_remove| 2644501 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t entity_sync_remove| 2644501 | 2643821 | | 9483 | RowExclusiveLock | t facility | 2644547 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t facility | 2644547 | 2643821 | | 9483 | RowShareLock | t facility_contact_mech_purpose | 2644563 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t inventory_item| 2644829 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t inventory_item| 2644829 | 2643821 | | 9483 | RowShareLock | t item_issuance | 2644925 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t item_issuance | 2644925 | 2643821 | | 9483 | RowShareLock | t item_issuance | 2644925 | 2643821 | | 9483 | RowExclusiveLock | t item_issuance_role| 2644929 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t item_issuance_role| 2644929 | 2643821 | | 9483 | RowExclusiveLock | t job_sandbox | 2644933 | 2643821 | | 9535 | AccessShareLock | t job_sandbox | 2644933 | 2643821 | | 9535 | RowExclusiveLock | t note_data | 2644988 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t order_adjustment | 2645019 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t order_contact_mech| 2645051 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t order_header | 2645067 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t order_header | 2645067 | 2643821 | | 9483 | RowShareLock | t order_header | 2645067 | 2643821 | | 9483 | RowExclusiveLock | t order_item| 2645079 | 2643821 | | 9483 | AccessShareLock | t order_item| 2645079 | 2643821 | | 9483 | RowShareLock | t order_item| 2645079 | 2643821 | | 9483 |
