Adding the prefetch did indeed solve the problem, though I'm a little
uneasy with having to go through my code adding prefetchs to get proper
behavior.
I'll see if I can get a smaller test case that I can post.
Thanks for your help!
Jeff
Andrus Adamchik wrote:
>
> I am not sure why are you not seeing the fresh values (do you have
> clustering and serialized sessions?), but there is an easy way to fix
> it - add Listing relationship prefetch to the query that retrieves
> alerts.
>
> Andrus
>
>
>
> On May 23, 2006, at 8:15 PM, Jeff de Vries wrote:
>> Any more thoughts or things I can try to get this to work?
>>
>>> Looking at the SQL log, it looks like I oversimplified the
>>> description of the problem (sorry). There is actual another table
>>> involved, Listing, and the status that is being updated is in
>>> Listing, not in Alert, though the Listing is being accessed through
>>> the Alert (Alert has a foreign key referencing the Listing). So,
>>> let me try again to describe the sequence of steps that are used to
>>> update the database:
>>> 1) Using a given Listing, we SELECT all Alerts that refer to that
>>> Listing. (In the case I'm looking at there is only one Alert).
>>> 2) Start transaction (i.e. there is a (unnecessary?) commit after
>>> the previous SELECT)
>>> 3) INSERT a new Alert that references the existing Listing (note
>>> that at this point the Listing has not been updated yet, i.e. it
>>> still has the old status) and the Person the Alert is addressed to.
>>> 4) UPDATE the first Alert to indicate it has been processed (i.e.
>>> set a 'seen' column to 'true')
>>> 5) UPDATE the status in the Listing to the new status (this is the
>>> thing we're seeing the old version of later)
>>> 6) COMMIT changes.
>>>
>>> Later, we do the following:
>>> 1) SELECT all Alerts addressed to this Person (which includes the
>>> new Alert created in step 3 above; this is also the query to which
>>> we added setRefreshingObjects = true, which now looks unnecessary
>>> since we did get the new Alert even before making that change)
>>> 2) For each Alert, display the status of the Listing referenced by
>>> that Alert. Note that at this point in the SQL log I don't see any
>>> SELECT statements trying to retrieve Listing data, so I'm guessing
>>> Cayenne thinks it already knows all the associated Listings and
>>> their statuses. It looks like it is the relationship between Alert
>>> and Listing that needs to be refreshed?
>>> 3) The status for the Listing associated with the new Alert still
>>> shows the value it had before it was updated in step 5 above.
>>>
>>> So, is it possible that when the new Alert is created it is pointing
>>> at the original version of the Listing (I'm talking about the
>>> in-memory objects, not the rows out in the database), but when the
>>> Listing is updated the in-cache version isn't getting updated? Or
>>> the in-cache version is getting updated, but the Alert is pointing
>>> at a stale Listing object?
>>
>>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Fri May 26 2006 - 13:19:49 EDT