You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to torque-dev@db.apache.org by Thomas Vandahl <tv...@apache.org> on 2007/05/03 14:33:49 UTC
Torque 3.3-RC3
I would like to call a vote on Torque 3.3-RC3 in the near future. I
should be hopefully the last RC before final release. Is there anything
that needs to be fixed before?
Thomas F., do you want to fix the doDelete() problem or should we just
generate an Exception for the time being? (I'd suggest this based on a
short discussion with Scott and Henning)
I have the changes Henning requested with respect to the texen-tasks
sitting here on my disk, but I'm a bit reluctant to check it in as this
is really relevant for Velcity 1.5 only. Any opinions? On Velocity 1.5
perhaps?
Bye, Thomas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: torque-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: torque-dev-help@db.apache.org
Re: Torque 3.3-RC3
Posted by Sean Gilligan <se...@msgilligan.com>.
Thomas Vandahl wrote:
> I would like to call a vote on Torque 3.3-RC3 in the near future. I
> should be hopefully the last RC before final release. Is there anything
> that needs to be fixed before?
>
Do you think you can apply my patch for #90?
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TORQUE-90
Thanks,
Sean
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: torque-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: torque-dev-help@db.apache.org
Re: Torque 3.3-RC3
Posted by Brendan Miller <bm...@dotster.com>.
I created TORQUE-94 for this issue, BTW.
On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 08:47:04AM -0700, Brendan Miller wrote:
>
> I just noticed this last week, and have not gotten around to bringing it
> up here, nor filing a jira or thereabouts.
>
> I observed when calling TablePeer.doDelete(tableObject) for an object
> that had a type="TIMESTAMP" (stored as TIMESTAMP(6) in Oracle), it would
> not find the matching row to delete. I tracked this down to the SQL
> that was being generated omitted the milliseconds.
>
> A row in a table with a column called 'ENTRY_TIMESTAMP' has the value:
>
> 18-APR-07 03.41.56.705000 AM
>
> as viewed by SQL*Plus. The generated SQL fragment is
>
> TO_DATE('18-APR-2007 03:41:45', 'DD-MM-YYYY HH24:MI:SS')
>
> as evidenced by DBOracle.java. This is insufficient to match the
> milliseconds which Village apparently use when inserting the record.
> To get around this, I have written my own buildCriteria() for these
> objects that excludes the timestamp fields, but this is a temporary hack.
>
> Am I on track with this? Is the fix trivial enough to be included in
> RC3? I haven't thought about an actual solution, and whether the
> getDateString() needs to have conditional behavior depending on the
> definition of the column (i.e., TIMESTAMP, TIMESTAMP(3), TIMESTMAP(6),
> etc.), but it is an annoyance (and a recent observation).
>
> Thanks,
> Brendan
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: torque-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: torque-dev-help@db.apache.org
Re: Torque 3.3-RC3
Posted by Brendan Miller <bm...@dotster.com>.
On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 02:33:49PM +0200, Thomas Vandahl wrote:
> I would like to call a vote on Torque 3.3-RC3 in the near future. I
> should be hopefully the last RC before final release. Is there anything
> that needs to be fixed before?
I just noticed this last week, and have not gotten around to bringing it
up here, nor filing a jira or thereabouts.
I observed when calling TablePeer.doDelete(tableObject) for an object
that had a type="TIMESTAMP" (stored as TIMESTAMP(6) in Oracle), it would
not find the matching row to delete. I tracked this down to the SQL
that was being generated omitted the milliseconds.
A row in a table with a column called 'ENTRY_TIMESTAMP' has the value:
18-APR-07 03.41.56.705000 AM
as viewed by SQL*Plus. The generated SQL fragment is
TO_DATE('18-APR-2007 03:41:45', 'DD-MM-YYYY HH24:MI:SS')
as evidenced by DBOracle.java. This is insufficient to match the
milliseconds which Village apparently use when inserting the record.
To get around this, I have written my own buildCriteria() for these
objects that excludes the timestamp fields, but this is a temporary hack.
Am I on track with this? Is the fix trivial enough to be included in
RC3? I haven't thought about an actual solution, and whether the
getDateString() needs to have conditional behavior depending on the
definition of the column (i.e., TIMESTAMP, TIMESTAMP(3), TIMESTMAP(6),
etc.), but it is an annoyance (and a recent observation).
Thanks,
Brendan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: torque-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: torque-dev-help@db.apache.org
Re: Torque 3.3-RC3
Posted by Scott Eade <se...@backstagetech.com.au>.
Thomas Fischer wrote:
> It is not problematic to fix the doDelete()-Problem, this would take about
> half an hour or so. I am still of the opinion that it should be fixed as
> proposed, and could do it on Saturday.
> You said that you would rather like to document the error than fixing it.
> Do you strongly object the fix ?
>
> I have no opinion at all about the texen stuff. As you said, it makes no
> sense to use texen separately if we still use velocity 1.3. Do you think we
> should upgrade to 1.5 ? I recall dimly that some people reported problems
> with velocity 1.4, but I can not recall any details. Are we reasonably
> confident that these problems do not exist in velocity 1.5 any more ?
>
I think there was some mention of a memory leak somewhere in 1.4 that
was apparent in the way it was used by torque.
I am pretty sure this will have been addressed in velocity 1.5 - Thomas
V. can check this with Henning IRL.
I'd like to see us on 1.5 for the sake of consistency.
Scott
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: torque-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: torque-dev-help@db.apache.org
Re: Torque 3.3-RC3
Posted by Thomas Vandahl <tv...@apache.org>.
Thomas Fischer wrote:
> It is not problematic to fix the doDelete()-Problem, this would take about
> half an hour or so. I am still of the opinion that it should be fixed as
> proposed, and could do it on Saturday.
> You said that you would rather like to document the error than fixing it.
> Do you strongly object the fix ?
Would it allow truly joined deletes such as in
DELETE tblA FROM tblA LEFT JOIN tblB ON tblA.ID = tblB.ID WHERE tblB.ID
IS NULL.
(That is: delete records from tblA where no associated record exists in
tblB, just to be clear)
If so, go ahead. If not I'd rather throw an Exception when a Criteria
with joins is provided and do it right the next time.
> I have no opinion at all about the texen stuff. As you said, it makes no
> sense to use texen separately if we still use velocity 1.3. Do you think we
> should upgrade to 1.5 ? I recall dimly that some people reported problems
> with velocity 1.4, but I can not recall any details. Are we reasonably
> confident that these problems do not exist in velocity 1.5 any more ?
I used to have no problems with Velocity 1.4. 1.5 should be better as I
understand it. I'll check it out.
Bye, Thomas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: torque-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: torque-dev-help@db.apache.org
RE: Torque 3.3-RC3
Posted by Thomas Fischer <fi...@seitenbau.net>.
It is not problematic to fix the doDelete()-Problem, this would take about
half an hour or so. I am still of the opinion that it should be fixed as
proposed, and could do it on Saturday.
You said that you would rather like to document the error than fixing it.
Do you strongly object the fix ?
I have no opinion at all about the texen stuff. As you said, it makes no
sense to use texen separately if we still use velocity 1.3. Do you think we
should upgrade to 1.5 ? I recall dimly that some people reported problems
with velocity 1.4, but I can not recall any details. Are we reasonably
confident that these problems do not exist in velocity 1.5 any more ?
Thomas
Thomas Vandahl <tv...@apache.org> schrieb am 03.05.2007 14:33:49:
> I would like to call a vote on Torque 3.3-RC3 in the near future. I
> should be hopefully the last RC before final release. Is there anything
> that needs to be fixed before?
>
> Thomas F., do you want to fix the doDelete() problem or should we just
> generate an Exception for the time being? (I'd suggest this based on a
> short discussion with Scott and Henning)
>
> I have the changes Henning requested with respect to the texen-tasks
> sitting here on my disk, but I'm a bit reluctant to check it in as this
> is really relevant for Velcity 1.5 only. Any opinions? On Velocity 1.5
> perhaps?
>
> Bye, Thomas.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: torque-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: torque-dev-help@db.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: torque-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: torque-dev-help@db.apache.org