Folks,
Sadly, I don't seem to have time anymore to follow this mailing list.
Can someone please point me to unsubscribe instructions?
Thanks.
Rick,
If you enable DBCP and run the quoted benchmark using JPA, what improvement
do you see with the insert throughput?
> -Original Message-
> From: Rick Curtis [mailto:curti...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, 5 February 2009 9:21 a.m.
> To: dev@openjpa.apache.org
> Subject: Improving out o
Kevin,
Wouldn't you want the enhancer changed to use Integer.valueOf(...)?
> -Original Message-
> From: Kevin Sutter (JIRA) [mailto:j...@apache.org]
> Sent: Thursday, 29 January 2009 9:41 a.m.
> To: dev@openjpa.apache.org
> Subject: [jira] Created: (OPENJPA-877) Findbugs problems with our
tabase handle the truncation/rounding ?
>
> The pre-fix code used to zero out all fractional part from the INSERT
> statement, even when the db was capable of storing (some) fractional
> information.
>
> Please clarify whether you intended (a) or (b).
>
> Thanks
> Dink
.
> >
> > Kevin
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 4:13 PM, Dinkar Rao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Ditto for SQLServer.
> >>
> >> On IDS, the fractional precision is specifiable upto only 5 places, as
> >> in "uda
Just a note on this for Sybase databases, for which the resolution is 1
300th of a second. When using O/R mapping with Sybase ASE, it is best to
round the Timestamp value to the nearest 100th of a second when storing, so
that you don't get unexpected comparison failures when reading the value
back
It would be interesting to identify the characteristics of the JPA
ConcurrentHashMap implementation that make it preferable to the JDK one, so
that possibly the JDK one can be improved.
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeremy Bauer (JIRA) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, 18 June 20
the connection pool.
>
> I definitely agree that the connection pool should never have
> connections associated with active transactions in them.
>
> -Patrick
>
> On Jun 9, 2008, at 12:23 PM, Evan Ireland wrote:
>
> > Putting connections with active transactions into
Putting connections with active transactions into a free pool is an error,
regardless of whether the active transactions hold locks or not.
Perhaps the underlying issue here has nothing to do with locks per se, but
just connection/pool management.
> -Original Message-
> From: Patrick Lins
Sounds like a good plan, based on the JDK 1.4 EOL schedule.
http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.2/
> -Original Message-
> From: Patrick Linskey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, 16 March 2008 12:06 p.m.
> To: dev@openjpa.apache.org
> Subject: JDK 1.4 support?
>
> Hi,
>
> What do you
Dain,
Sounds like you are wanting a pessimistic lock. The semantics
of WRITE_LOCK are defined in optimistic terms in the spec.
The JPA 2.0 expert group is looking into this. In the mean time,
only non-portable apps can get this behaviour.
> -Original Message-
> From: Dain Sundstrom [mail
penjpa.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Byte array handling is probably not spec
> compliant - was RE: [jira] Resolved: (OPENJPA-422) Calendar
> objects contained in a detached Entity still have a "live"
> StateManagerImpl
>
> Hi Evan,
>
> On Oct 30, 2007, at 12:35 PM
> objects contained in a detached Entity still have a "live"
> StateManagerImpl
>
> Evan,
>
> On 10/30/07, Evan Ireland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Kevin,
> >
> > JPA 1.0 section 3.2.3 Synchronization to the Database
> >
> To: dev@openjpa.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [jira] Resolved: (OPENJPA-422) Calendar objects
> contained in a detached Entity still have a "live" StateManagerImpl
>
> Evan,
>
> On 10/28/07, Evan Ireland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Since you appear to be fam
Kevin,
Since you appear to be familiar with the proxying stuff, I
wonder if you can say, for persistent attributes of type
"byte[]" which cannot be proxied, but are mutable,
how does OpenJPA handle that case?
> -Original Message-
> From: Kevin Sutter (JIRA) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> S
Hi,
A couple of weeks back, I was interested to follow the discussion about
Calendar proxies and cloning.
This got me to wondering, for persistent attributes of type "byte[]" which
cannot be proxied, but are mutable, how does OpenJPA handle that case?
Just curious, why are Calendar objects being proxied in the
first place?
> -Original Message-
> From: Kevin Sutter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, 5 October 2007 9:01 a.m.
> To: dev@openjpa.apache.org
> Subject: Cloning Calendar proxies
>
> Hi,
> It seems that the IBM JDK is c
Patrick,
In what sense does BigInteger have a lack of precision?
> -Original Message-
> From: Patrick Linskey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, 24 August 2007 8:08 a.m.
> To: dev@openjpa.apache.org
> Subject: Re: BigInteger as @Id
>
> I see where you're coming from.
>
> Person
Patrick,
I did something similar (but not quite the same)
for some JPA prototyping some months back.
I wrote a tool that would introspect the JPA annotation
classes, and for each one (e.g. "interface Xyz"), would spit
out an 'equivalent' class XyzMetaData. For example:
package com.sybase.jpa.me
19 matches
Mail list logo
