Ok, I just grabbed the issue. If I have more comments, I'll add them
via Jira.
Andrus
On Jul 11, 2006, at 12:33 PM, Gentry, Michael ((Contractor)) wrote:
> Tarball of test case is attached to ticket. I'll try to debug it,
> but I
> might get busy this afternoon. I enclosed some logs and the relevant
> schema diagram in the tarball which might give you some ideas (shows
> runs with M9-M12).
>
> Thanks,
>
> /dev/mrg
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrus Adamchik [mailto:andru..bjectstyle.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 10:42 AM
> To: cayenne-de..ncubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Final release?
>
>
>> Would you like a tarball of it?
>
> I suggest opening a Jira issue and attaching the tarball to it
> (unless there is business-sensitive info in the model?)
>
>> I can look into it, too.
>
> If you want to take a lead on that, please do. But I'll be willing to
> help at any moment, as I really want to get 1.2 out asap.
>
> Andrus
>
>
>
> On Jul 11, 2006, at 10:31 AM, Gentry, Michael ((Contractor)) wrote:
>
>> OK, I now have a standalone test. The original application would
>> throw
>> an exception with a Sybase backend. My test case throws the same
>> exception with a PostgreSQL backend, so we can eliminate the binary
>> key
>> wackiness from the equation. My gut feeling is inheritance has
>> something to do with it, since my non-inheritance test didn't fail,
>> but
>> it is only a gut feeling.
>>
>> Would you like a tarball of it? I can look into it, too.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> /dev/mrg
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Andrus Adamchik [mailto:andru..bjectstyle.org]
>> Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2006 2:05 PM
>> To: cayenne-de..ncubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Final release?
>>
>>
>> Mike, would it be possible to create a small standalone unit test to
>> reproduce this?
>>
>> Andrus
>>
>>
>> On Jul 7, 2006, at 3:46 PM, Gentry, Michael ((Contractor)) wrote:
>>
>>> I hate to be a party pooper, but I have another concern ...
>>>
>>> Now that I can insert again (thanks!), I run into this problem.
>>> Given:
>>>
>>> CollectionElement ->> Item <<- Notification
>>>
>>> If I insert an Item (it is just a many-to-many linkage table) in one
>>> request, and then immediately delete it again in the next request,
>>> I am
>>> getting optimistic locking exceptions. If I restart the app, I can
>>> then
>>> go in and delete it. Here are some of the logs when doing the
>>> delete:
>>>
>>>
>>> item (starting out):
>>> PID=0x00000000000000225c85a35e]{<ObjectId:PSEnumeratedItem,
>>> identifier=[..d5543>; committed;
>>> [collectionElement=>{<ObjectId:PSLocalCollectionElement,
>>> identifier=[..6c157>}; moniker=>ES;
>>> notification=>{<ObjectId:FENotification, identifier=[..36b89>}]}
>>>
>>> collectionElement.removeFromItems(item);
>>> [PID=0x00000000000000225c85a35e]{<ObjectId:PSEnumeratedItem,
>>> identifier=[..d5543>; modified; [collectionElement=>null;
>>> moniker=>ES;
>>> notification=>{<ObjectId:FENotification, identifier=[..36b89>}]}
>>>
>>> notification.removeFromItems(item);
>>> [PID=0x00000000000000225c85a35e]{<ObjectId:PSEnumeratedItem,
>>> identifier=[..d5543>; modified; [collectionElement=>null;
>>> moniker=>ES;
>>> notification=>null]}
>>>
>>> dataContext.deleteObject(item);
>>> [PID=0x00000000000000225c85a35e]{<ObjectId:PSEnumeratedItem,
>>> identifier=[..d5543>; deleted; [collectionElement=>null;
>>> moniker=>ES;
>>> notification=>null]}
>>>
>>> dataContext.commitChanges();
>>> org.objectstyle.cayenne.access.QueryLogger - DELETE FROM PS_Item
>>> WHERE
>>> identifier = ? AND elementPID IS NULL AND moniker = ? AND
>>> objectPID IS
>>> NULL
>>> org.objectstyle.cayenne.access.QueryLogger - [bind: < 00 00 00 00
>>> 00 00
>>> 00 22 5C 85 A3 5E >, NULL, 'ES', NULL]
>>> org.objectstyle.cayenne.access.QueryLogger - *** error.
>>> org.objectstyle.cayenne.access.OptimisticLockException: [v.1.2M12
>>> March
>>> 23 2006] Optimistic Lock Failure, SQL: [DELETE FROM PS_Item WHERE
>>> identifier = ? AND elementPID IS NULL AND moniker = ? AND
>>> objectPID IS
>>> NULL], WHERE clause bindings: [moniker='ES', identifier=< 00 00 00
>>> 00 00
>>> 00 00 22 5C 85 A3 5E >, objectPID=NULL, elementPID=NULL]
>>>
>>>
>>> Ignore the 1.2M12 -- I'm running against the latest from Subversion
>>> within Eclipse (guess that M12 the last time I did a full build
>>> using
>>> ant). The bind output is also misleading -- 4 values for 2 ?'s (I
>>> thought I fixed that at one point, but maybe that was for UPDATE
>>> only).
>>> Anyway, this code used to work in 1.2M9 (and earlier). I use
>>> optimistic
>>> locking on everything, but there are no cascade/etc delete rules.
>>>
>>> I'll experiment/debug more, just thought I'd report it in case you
>>> were
>>> trying to put out the release.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> /dev/mrg
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Andrus Adamchik [mailto:andru..bjectstyle.org
>>> <mailto:andru..bjectstyle.org> ]
>>> Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 10:33 AM
>>> To: cayenne-de..ncubator.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: Final release?
>>>
>>>
>>> Let's at least submit this as a bug. I think I may have an older
>>> Linux box where I can put Sybase and play with a solution that I had
>>> in mind.
>>>
>>> In any event whatever fix we end up with, it should be possible to
>>> stick it in a custom PkGenerator, so it shouldn't be a problem for
>>> 1.2 users if it goes in release 3.0 (and we can port it to 1.2.1 as
>>> well).
>>>
>>> Andrus
>>>
>>> On Jul 6, 2006, at 10:16 AM, Gentry, Michael ((Contractor)) wrote:
>>>> My biggest concern right now is the Sybase PK question. If I can
>>>> get
>>>> our DBA (who is out right now) to set me up a playground somewhere,
>>>> I'll
>>>> test it. Of course, we could decide to handle that as a bug fix,
>>>> too.
>>>> Either way, I won't be upgrading past M9 for a bit ...
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> /dev/mrg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Andrus Adamchik [mailto:andru..bjectstyle.org
>>> <mailto:andru..bjectstyle.org> ]
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 11:07 AM
>>>> To: cayenne-de..ncubator.apache.org
>>>> Subject: Final release?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think it's time to make the final release of 1.2 and move ahead
>>>> with other things that we planned. I am working on finishing the
>>>> documentation (namely remote object persistence tutorial), and
>>>> fixing
>>>> last minute bugs. I think we are in a good shape overall. So how
>>>> about a release sometime early next week.
>>>>
>>>> Comments? Objections?
>>>>
>>>> Andrus
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Tue Jul 11 2006 - 14:31:22 EDT