Andrus,
That fixed it. Thanks for the quick response!
Brian
--- Andrus Adamchik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was looking for any clues in the code, nothing concrete... And I
> found it. The recent fix to CAY-785 deprecated and stopped calling
> "Configuration.getDataSourceFactory()" replacing it with
> "Configuration.getDataSourceFactory(String)". So you need to override
> the new method. Also I checked in a fix that restores backwards
> compatibility. It should be available from the Hudson CI server soon
> (build #109 or newer).
>
> Andrus
>
>
> On May 3, 2008, at 3:21 AM, Brian Nelson wrote:
>
> > Andrus,
> >
> > I'm not sure exactly how you want the code sample. If you need me to
> > provide a self contained app
> > I can do that. For now I'll just copy the code from my app so you
> > can take a look at it. I have a
> > static method that configures my custom DataSourceFactory. The call
> > to DbUtils.openDb succeeds,
> > but the getDataSourceFactory method in CompanyConfiguration is never
> > called.
> >
> > public class DbUtils {
> > private static DataContext globalContext;
> > private static DataContext estimateContext;
> > private static DataContext roomContext;
> > private static DataContext assemblyContext;
> > private static DataContext partsContext;
> >
> > public static void openDb(String pathToDb) throws Exception {
> > try {
> > CompanyDataSourceFactory.setDbPath(pathToDb);
> >
> > Configuration
> > .initializeSharedConfiguration(CompanyConfiguration.class);
> > Configuration config =
> > Configuration.getSharedConfiguration();
> > DataDomain domain = config.getDomain();
> >
> > globalContext =
> > DataContext.createDataContext(domain.getName());
> > estimateContext =
> > DataContext.createDataContext(domain.getName());
> > roomContext =
> > DataContext.createDataContext(domain.getName());
> > assemblyContext =
> > DataContext.createDataContext(domain.getName());
> > partsContext =
> > DataContext.createDataContext(domain.getName());
> > } catch (Exception e) {
> > throw new Exception("Unable to initialize database!",
> > e);
> > }
> > }
> > }
> >
> > public class CompanyConfiguration extends DefaultConfiguration {
> >
> > private static CompanyDataSourceFactory factory = new
> > CompanyDataSourceFactory();
> >
> > @Override
> > public DataSourceFactory getDataSourceFactory() {
> > return factory;
> > }
> >
> > }
> >
> > public class CompanyDataSourceFactory implements DataSourceFactory {
> >
> > private static DataSource ds = null;
> > private static String dbPath = "Companies/db";
> >
> > public static void setDbPath(String val) {
> > dbPath = val;
> > }
> >
> > @Override
> > public DataSource getDataSource(String arg0) throws Exception {
> > if(dbPath.startsWith("server")) {
> > // server:host
> > ClientDataSource40 tmpDS = new ClientDataSource40();
> > String[] sArray = dbPath.split(":");
> > tmpDS.setServerName(sArray[1]);
> > tmpDS.setDatabaseName("db");
> > tmpDS.setUser("user");
> > tmpDS.setPassword("pass");
> > ds = tmpDS;
> > } else {
> > EmbeddedDataSource40 tmpDS = new EmbeddedDataSource40();
> > tmpDS.setDatabaseName(dbPath);
> > tmpDS.setUser("user");
> > tmpDS.setPassword("db");
> > ds = tmpDS;
> > }
> >
> >
> >
> > return ds;
> > }
> >
> > @Override
> > public void initializeWithParentConfiguration(Configuration arg0) {
> >
> > }
> >
> > }
> >
> > Hopefully that's enough. If not let me know what I should provide.
> >
> > Thanks for your help!
> >
> > Brian
> >
> > --- Andrus Adamchik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Strange. That should still work the same. The only change to
> >> Configuration since M3 was related to the DataSourceFactory handling
> >> (CAY-785)... Do you have a code example that demonstrates the
> >> problem?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Andrus
> >>
> >>
> >> On May 1, 2008, at 10:29 PM, Brian Nelson wrote:
> >>> I've been using a custom subclass of DefaultConfiguration to
> >>> customize my database connection.
> >>> This works great with 3.0M3. However, today I upgraded to the
> >>> snapshot build and it seems to be
> >>> ignoring the custom configuration class I pass into the
> >>> Configuration.initializeSharedConfiguration method. Has the way
> >>> custom configurations work
> >>> changed?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks in advance!
> >>>
> >>> Brian
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
