Re: OTM TransactionIsolation

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 14:35:56 +0100, Armin Waibel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Oliver, > > Oliver Zeigermann wrote: > > On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 12:43:59 +0100, Armin Waibel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>The OTM layer is alpha state, so there will

Re: OTM TransactionIsolation

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 12:43:59 +0100, Armin Waibel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The OTM layer is alpha state, so there will be much of "unchecked" code. > Currently nobody works on OTM and for OJB 1.1 we try to move most > services (e.g. locking,...) to the kernel (org.apache.broker.*). You > could f

OTM TransactionIsolation

Folks, I am currently having a hard time to understand the different implementations of TransactionIsolation machting the different isolation levels. Maybe they are obvious, but I am just not smart enough. I also was wondering why TimeoutStrategy does not use Object#wait to wait on a Object#noti

Re: Where to report bugs / contribue patches

Thanks, this works, anyone able to fix this on the OJB page? Oliver On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 18:31:41 +0100, Jakob Braeuchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > hi oliver, > > the correct link is > http://nagoya.apache.org/scarab/servlet/scarab/ > > jakob > > Oliver Zeig

Re: How to access the current platfrom from BatchEntryImpl?

ceBroker() method and use in BatchEntryImpl > batchManager.getPersistenceBroker().getConnectionManager().getSupportedPlatform() > > regards, > Armin > > > > Oliver Zeigermann wrote: > > Su

How to access the current platfrom from BatchEntryImpl?

Subject says it all... Thanks, Oliver - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Where to report bugs / contribue patches

This link on the OJB page: http://issues.apache.org/scarab/servlet/scarab/ Does not exist... Oliver - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Another implementation of the Two Level Cache

The Slide project ? which project are you talking about ? the one from > Jakarta ? > > Yes the resulting isolation level is similar to READ_COMMITED. > > -Message d'origine- > De: Oliver Zeigermann > A: OJB Users List > Date: 10/12/2004 14:53 > > >

Re: Another implementation of the Two Level Cache

This pretty much is the mechanism the Slide project uses. AFAIK the isolation level is similar to READ_COMMITTED, isn't it? Oliver On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 13:18:53 +0100, CLARAMONTE Jean-Baptiste <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello, > > As I was not satisfy with the implementation of the TwoLevelCa

Re: Deadlocks mapped to common exception?

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 13:16:24 +0100, Armin Waibel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What is the "top level"? Slide itself or the app using Slide. If you run > a persistence layer in a managed environment (like a j2ee conform > appServer) it is not possible for the persistence layer to restart the > tx, b

Re: Relation between OJB and Torque

So, I undestand that you would recommend using OJB without dedicated data access objects and mapping your objects directly to tables, right? Oliver On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 16:39:00 +0100, Thomas Dudziak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Oliver Zeigermann wrote: > > >I see. Coming

Re: Relation between OJB and Torque

I see. Coming back to my initial question: Are OJB and Torque competitors then? Oliver On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 16:25:27 +0100, Thomas Dudziak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Oliver Zeigermann wrote: > > >Ah, thanks, this is a simple answer :) That's why you are currently >

Re: Relation between OJB and Torque

Ah, thanks, this is a simple answer :) That's why you are currently having the vote to move commons sql to db commons, right? Oliver On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 16:17:34 +0100, Thomas Dudziak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Oliver Zeigermann wrote: > > >This may be obvious, but

Relation between OJB and Torque

This may be obvious, but I am currently a little bit confused about the releation between OJB and Torque. OJB uses Torque, right? But Torque seems to be an object mapper itself... Any hints? Thanks in advance, Oliver - To unsub

Re: Deadlocks mapped to common exception?

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 10:39:31 +0100, Armin Waibel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Oliver, > > Oliver Zeigermann wrote: > > >>can anyone tell me if OJB is able to find out that a certain SQL > >>exception really is a deadlock exception and maps it to anoth

Re: Deadlocks mapped to common exception?

Is this just nonsense or is it that no one is interested? How do OJB users handle deadlocks? Oliver On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 01:23:17 +0100, Oliver Zeigermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Folks, > > can anyone tell me if OJB is able to find out that a certain SQL > exception re

Deadlocks mapped to common exception?

Folks, can anyone tell me if OJB is able to find out that a certain SQL exception really is a deadlock exception and maps it to another common one (DeadlockException)? This would be very helpful to repeat a deadlocked transaction. I found no code in OJB that might do such a job. If there is nothi