Thanks again Chuck and Jerry,
On 16/03/2006, at 8:01 AM, Chuck Hill wrote:
Have you turned on EOAdaptorDebuggingEnabled to check the
generated SQL? It looks like EOF may be attempting to write a
record that contains itself recursively and determines on the
second recursion that the record
Thanks Chuck,On 16/03/2006, at 4:41 AM, Chuck Hill wrote:Now, that does not explain how this is happening on a newly inserted object. Hence, I will resort to wild speculation. ;-)1) A snapshot for the object has been registered on the server under this temporary ID prior to this save and some serv
A really big thanks to Jerry and Chuck for expending a lot of effort
on looking through this and debabating it. I'm trying to respond in
as few short posts as possible, because I've probably already bored
people to tears.
On 16/03/2006, at 2:31 AM, Jerry W. Walker wrote:
Hi, Ian,
I can't
Hi Jerry,
Thanks, I've never heard of Gall before, just the usual Peter
Principle, Murphy's Law, Dilbert Principle, W.E. Demming, etc. Maybe
he's just enforcing the KISS principle.
As for being cantankerous, well I did get a Christmas card from one
of the Grumpy Old Men (a British TV show
On Mar 15, 2006, at 4:01 PM, Chuck Hill wrote:
I think so. The exception that Ian posted is not the
EOGeneralAdaptorException that you are thinking of. It is thrown
by EODistributionContext. EODistributionContext is not an editing
context. "EODistributionContext objects perform the ser
Hi,
On Mar 15, 2006, at 12:27 PM, Jerry W. Walker wrote:
On Mar 15, 2006, at 12:41 PM, Chuck Hill wrote:
On Mar 15, 2006, at 7:31 AM, Jerry W. Walker wrote:
I can't imagine (short of a bug in the development environment)
how the code you're exposing below could cause an optimistic
locking
On Mar 15, 2006, at 12:11 PM, Jerry W. Walker wrote:
Hi, Chuck,
On Mar 15, 2006, at 12:18 PM, Chuck Hill wrote:
On Mar 15, 2006, at 6:57 AM, Jerry W. Walker wrote:
many are just as cantankerous and contrary as a couple of your
posts have been.
You looking at me? :-P
Heh, no, I was thin
On Mar 15, 2006, at 12:41 PM, Chuck Hill wrote:
Hi,
On Mar 15, 2006, at 7:31 AM, Jerry W. Walker wrote:
Hi, Ian,
I can't imagine (short of a bug in the development environment)
how the code you're exposing below could cause an optimistic
locking failure. The upshot of the code below onl
Hi, Chuck,
On Mar 15, 2006, at 12:18 PM, Chuck Hill wrote:
On Mar 15, 2006, at 6:57 AM, Jerry W. Walker wrote:
many are just as cantankerous and contrary as a couple of your
posts have been.
You looking at me? :-P
Heh, no, I was thinking as much of myself as anyone, but your comment
cer
Hi,
On Mar 15, 2006, at 7:31 AM, Jerry W. Walker wrote:
Hi, Ian,
I can't imagine (short of a bug in the development environment) how
the code you're exposing below could cause an optimistic locking
failure. The upshot of the code below only reads from the store. It
neither creates nor up
On Mar 15, 2006, at 6:57 AM, Jerry W. Walker wrote:
many are just as cantankerous and contrary as a couple of your
posts have been.
You looking at me? :-P
--
Coming in 2006 - an introduction to web applications using WebObjects
and Xcode http://www.global-village.net/wointro
Pra
Which just proves my point, because that's exactly what I did
without an SCC package! Would I like to avoid part of my manual
process by using such a package... sure. But for all the questions
and wranglings I have seen over the use of these and the
instructions of how to install and then u
Hi, Ian,
I can't imagine (short of a bug in the development environment) how
the code you're exposing below could cause an optimistic locking
failure. The upshot of the code below only reads from the store. It
neither creates nor updates any records therein.
Optimistic locking failures oc
Hi, Ian,
Your comments remind me of a small book published in the late 70's
called _SystemAntics_ by Dr. John Gall. In this book, the author
(facetiously) tries to convince us that, in general, systems work
poorly or not at all. He illucidates the short comings of systems
with several "la
On 15/03/2006, at 6:56 AM, Janine Sisk wrote:
No problem, just use your SCC package to compare the current code
to the last known good version and see what has changed.
Which just proves my point, because that's exactly what I did without
an SCC package! Would I like to avoid part of my man
OK, found the problem. It was not in the model, but rather in the
code for initializing a JTree. First, I was getting top-level nodes
by getting them out of the display group:
NSArray notes = EOQualifier.filteredArrayWithQualifier
(display_group.allObjects (),
EOQualifier.qualifierWithQua
Oooh!!! What a shot! :-)
Regards,
Jerry
On Mar 14, 2006, at 2:57 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No problem, just use your SCC package to compare the current code
to the last known good version and see what has changed.
Oh, wait.
janine :)
On Mar 13, 2006, at 10:09 PM, Ian Joyner wr
No problem, just use your SCC package to compare the current code to
the last known good version and see what has changed.
Oh, wait.
janine :)
On Mar 13, 2006, at 10:09 PM, Ian Joyner wrote:
I have been running this model for six months and saving this
entity just fine. Suddenly, I a
I have been running this model for six months and saving this entity
just fine. Suddenly, I am getting an optimistic locking failure when
doing an insert of a new record (that's right insert, not update). In
fact is the trace below, I show that the offending record is in the
editing context
19 matches
Mail list logo
