You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to ojb-dev@db.apache.org by Jakob Braeuchi <jb...@gmx.ch> on 2004/11/04 22:33:40 UTC
Re: 1.0.2?
hi brian, armin,
what's going on for 1.0.2 ?
jakob
Armin Waibel schrieb:
> update release notes, modify test case.
>
> But get still two failures when run odmg test cases. Think the failures
> are a result of the changes made in handling of the
> ManageableCollection#.afterStore(...)
> in PBImpl (call only when auto-update 'OBJECT' is set).
>
> To fix this problem we have to improve ObjectEnvelope (encapsulates a
> persistent object) internal object image to detect new and deleted
> references. Then the new/deleted references could be handled on odmg
> level and ODMG-impl no longer rely on RemovalAware collections.
>
> Start working on that stuff, but it's not finished yet.
>
> regards,
> Armin
>
> Armin Waibel wrote:
>
>> Hi Brian,
>>
>> Brian McCallister wrote:
>>
>>> Before I left we had a passing vote for 1.0.2 release
>>>
>>
>> Last weeks I couldn't spend much time in OJB development.
>> There are still some failing test cases. I will have a look at this
>> tomorrow, modify the test classes to skip failing tests and add notes
>> to the release-notes file.
>> Could we put off the deadline one day?
>>
>> Armin
>>
>>
>>> Did anyone ever make it?
>>>
>>> If not, i can tonight.
>>>
>>> -Brian
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
Re: 1.0.2?
Posted by Jakob Braeuchi <jb...@gmx.ch>.
hi armin,
Armin Waibel schrieb:
> Jakob Braeuchi wrote:
>
>> hi armin,
>>
>> Armin Waibel schrieb:
>>
>>> Hi Jakob,
>>>
>>> Jakob Braeuchi wrote:
>>>
>>>> hi armin,
>>>>
>>>> i have a patched object-envelope that works for deletes and passes
>>>> all testcases without errors. it's not so elegant because the map
>>>> includes the whole collection for 1:n relationships. but i can send
>>>> you the code if you like.
>>>>
>>>
>>> great! If your patch fit all requirements check it in.
>>
>>
>>
>> it does of course not fit all of the requirements on your list ;)
>
>
> It's a pity, so we have to work further on ;-)
> I started today working on this stuff too. Maybe we can merge our work
> to resolve most issues.
>
>
>> i only tried to solve the problem when objects are removed from a
>> collection or array.
>>
>
> how do you do this?
the map holds the whole collection for 1:n relationships (not only it's size)
and then i walk the old and the new collection.
>
>
>> you're list of problem is quite long ! but i eventually have to add
>> another one:
>>
>
> ohh no!
>
>> when i walked the collections to detect new / deleted objects i found
>> a strange issue.
>>
>> oldCol is a collection of proxies and newObj is a prox contained in
>> oldCol:
>>
>> Object newObj = newIter.next();
>> if ((oldCol != null) && (!oldCol.contains(newObj)))
>>
>> but contains() returns false ! after some digging i found that
>> equals() does not work properly for proxies.
>>
>> proxyA.equals(proxyB)
>> in InvocationHandler#invoke proxyA object is converted to the
>> realSubject so equals is invoked on the realSubject with proxyB as
>> argument; needless to mention that this will return false.
>>
>
> To detect deleted objects I use the Identity of the object. If the
> reference is a proxy (single or collection proxy) I add the image class
> (e.g. ObjectEnvelope or a helper class like ImageContainer) itself as
> listener.
> If the collection proxy was materialized all object identities will be
> traced. This should solve problems with proxy objects.
i think this is a more general problem that not only could happen in
object-envelope. but i do have a fix for that :)
...
// BRJ: make sure that the object to be compared is a real object
// otherwise equals will return false.
if ("equals".equals(methodName) && args[0] != null)
{
Object otherObj = ProxyHelper.getRealObject(args[0]);
args[0] = otherObj;
}
subject = getRealSubject();
return method.invoke(subject, args);
...
i will send you my patched classes to your mail-account.
jakob
>
> In my patch I try to detect new objects when the commit was prepared.
> All registered objects will register again all references. So the new
> objects should be detected.
>
> Armin
>
>> jakob
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> The problems I found (and try to correct with my patch) for current
>>> ObjectEnvelope class are:
>>>
>>> - Think when the image is done proxy objects and proxy references
>>> will be materialized (e.g. reference objects can be proxies itself too)
>>>
>>> - The image map (ObjectEnvelope#getMap(...)) contains all persistent
>>> object field values and the comparison is done between different
>>> image maps. But not all field values of persistent objects are
>>> comparable via equals-methods (ObjectEnvelope#hasChanged(...)).
>>> E.g. complex fields fields like arrays or fields using a
>>> FieldConversion from an String[] to String. If the user change one
>>> array entry the change will not be detected (because both maps refer
>>> to the same array object).
>>> Similar problem for byte[], Date fields, ... think we should generate
>>> a unique hashCode() for arrays or other unique number representation
>>> of the field (e.g. Date.getTime()...).
>>>
>>> - How to handle Array, Clob, Blob, Ref, URL, ... fields in the object
>>> image. How can we detect changes (think it's not possible).
>>>
>>> - How to handle serialized objects (objects pass to client via
>>> network and serialized version contains changes, in
>>> TransactionExt#markDirty I fixed this by replacing the object used in
>>> ObjectEnvelope, so the changes will be detected). We don't have
>>> detach/attach support.
>>>
>>> - Proxy listener problem? Shouldn't the proxy listener objects be
>>> removed after object materialization to free the listener objects? A
>>> object could not be materialized several times, so why keep the
>>> listener?
>>>
>>> - detection of new and deleted referenced objects in 1:1, 1:n m:n
>>> references
>>>
>>> - If the user remove an referenced object, e.g. remove an referenced
>>> object from the collection of a 1:n, m:n reference, the removed
>>> object should not be deleted, the removed reference should only be
>>> "unlinked". Only if method Database.deletePersistent(...) was called
>>> an object should be deleted. This behavior would allow proper
>>> handling of m:n relations (unlink means remove from indirection table).
>>> Assume in current implementation the behavior isn't consistent, maybe
>>> I'm wrong.
>>>
>>> Did you found more issues in current ODMG implementation?
>>>
>>> regards,
>>> Armin
>>>
>>>
>>>> jakob
>>>>
>>>> Armin Waibel schrieb:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Jakob,
>>>>>
>>>>> Jakob Braeuchi wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> hi brian, armin,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> what's going on for 1.0.2 ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, feel a little drained, so I don't spend much time on OJB.
>>>>> Will try to finish work on weekend, otherwise we should release
>>>>> 1.0.2 without improved ObjectEnvelope class (and include these
>>>>> changes in 1.0.3) - release at Sunday?
>>>>>
>>>>> regards,
>>>>> Armin
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> jakob
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Armin Waibel schrieb:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> update release notes, modify test case.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But get still two failures when run odmg test cases. Think the
>>>>>>> failures are a result of the changes made in handling of the
>>>>>>> ManageableCollection#.afterStore(...)
>>>>>>> in PBImpl (call only when auto-update 'OBJECT' is set).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To fix this problem we have to improve ObjectEnvelope
>>>>>>> (encapsulates a persistent object) internal object image to
>>>>>>> detect new and deleted references. Then the new/deleted
>>>>>>> references could be handled on odmg level and ODMG-impl no longer
>>>>>>> rely on RemovalAware collections.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Start working on that stuff, but it's not finished yet.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> regards,
>>>>>>> Armin
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Armin Waibel wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Brian,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Brian McCallister wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Before I left we had a passing vote for 1.0.2 release
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Last weeks I couldn't spend much time in OJB development.
>>>>>>>> There are still some failing test cases. I will have a look at
>>>>>>>> this tomorrow, modify the test classes to skip failing tests and
>>>>>>>> add notes to the release-notes file.
>>>>>>>> Could we put off the deadline one day?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Armin
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Did anyone ever make it?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If not, i can tonight.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -Brian
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
Re: 1.0.2?
Posted by Armin Waibel <ar...@apache.org>.
Jakob Braeuchi wrote:
> hi armin,
>
> Armin Waibel schrieb:
>
>> Hi Jakob,
>>
>> Jakob Braeuchi wrote:
>>
>>> hi armin,
>>>
>>> i have a patched object-envelope that works for deletes and passes
>>> all testcases without errors. it's not so elegant because the map
>>> includes the whole collection for 1:n relationships. but i can send
>>> you the code if you like.
>>>
>>
>> great! If your patch fit all requirements check it in.
>
>
> it does of course not fit all of the requirements on your list ;)
It's a pity, so we have to work further on ;-)
I started today working on this stuff too. Maybe we can merge our work
to resolve most issues.
> i only tried to solve the problem when objects are removed from a
> collection or array.
>
how do you do this?
> you're list of problem is quite long ! but i eventually have to add
> another one:
>
ohh no!
> when i walked the collections to detect new / deleted objects i found a
> strange issue.
>
> oldCol is a collection of proxies and newObj is a prox contained in oldCol:
>
> Object newObj = newIter.next();
> if ((oldCol != null) && (!oldCol.contains(newObj)))
>
> but contains() returns false ! after some digging i found that equals()
> does not work properly for proxies.
>
> proxyA.equals(proxyB)
> in InvocationHandler#invoke proxyA object is converted to the
> realSubject so equals is invoked on the realSubject with proxyB as
> argument; needless to mention that this will return false.
>
To detect deleted objects I use the Identity of the object. If the
reference is a proxy (single or collection proxy) I add the image class
(e.g. ObjectEnvelope or a helper class like ImageContainer) itself as
listener.
If the collection proxy was materialized all object identities will be
traced. This should solve problems with proxy objects.
In my patch I try to detect new objects when the commit was prepared.
All registered objects will register again all references. So the new
objects should be detected.
Armin
> jakob
>
>
>
>>
>> The problems I found (and try to correct with my patch) for current
>> ObjectEnvelope class are:
>>
>> - Think when the image is done proxy objects and proxy references will
>> be materialized (e.g. reference objects can be proxies itself too)
>>
>> - The image map (ObjectEnvelope#getMap(...)) contains all persistent
>> object field values and the comparison is done between different image
>> maps. But not all field values of persistent objects are comparable
>> via equals-methods (ObjectEnvelope#hasChanged(...)).
>> E.g. complex fields fields like arrays or fields using a
>> FieldConversion from an String[] to String. If the user change one
>> array entry the change will not be detected (because both maps refer
>> to the same array object).
>> Similar problem for byte[], Date fields, ... think we should generate
>> a unique hashCode() for arrays or other unique number representation
>> of the field (e.g. Date.getTime()...).
>>
>> - How to handle Array, Clob, Blob, Ref, URL, ... fields in the object
>> image. How can we detect changes (think it's not possible).
>>
>> - How to handle serialized objects (objects pass to client via network
>> and serialized version contains changes, in TransactionExt#markDirty I
>> fixed this by replacing the object used in ObjectEnvelope, so the
>> changes will be detected). We don't have detach/attach support.
>>
>> - Proxy listener problem? Shouldn't the proxy listener objects be
>> removed after object materialization to free the listener objects? A
>> object could not be materialized several times, so why keep the listener?
>>
>> - detection of new and deleted referenced objects in 1:1, 1:n m:n
>> references
>>
>> - If the user remove an referenced object, e.g. remove an referenced
>> object from the collection of a 1:n, m:n reference, the removed object
>> should not be deleted, the removed reference should only be
>> "unlinked". Only if method Database.deletePersistent(...) was called
>> an object should be deleted. This behavior would allow proper handling
>> of m:n relations (unlink means remove from indirection table).
>> Assume in current implementation the behavior isn't consistent, maybe
>> I'm wrong.
>>
>> Did you found more issues in current ODMG implementation?
>>
>> regards,
>> Armin
>>
>>
>>> jakob
>>>
>>> Armin Waibel schrieb:
>>>
>>>> Hi Jakob,
>>>>
>>>> Jakob Braeuchi wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> hi brian, armin,
>>>>>
>>>>> what's going on for 1.0.2 ?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, feel a little drained, so I don't spend much time on OJB.
>>>> Will try to finish work on weekend, otherwise we should release
>>>> 1.0.2 without improved ObjectEnvelope class (and include these
>>>> changes in 1.0.3) - release at Sunday?
>>>>
>>>> regards,
>>>> Armin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> jakob
>>>>>
>>>>> Armin Waibel schrieb:
>>>>>
>>>>>> update release notes, modify test case.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But get still two failures when run odmg test cases. Think the
>>>>>> failures are a result of the changes made in handling of the
>>>>>> ManageableCollection#.afterStore(...)
>>>>>> in PBImpl (call only when auto-update 'OBJECT' is set).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To fix this problem we have to improve ObjectEnvelope
>>>>>> (encapsulates a persistent object) internal object image to detect
>>>>>> new and deleted references. Then the new/deleted references could
>>>>>> be handled on odmg level and ODMG-impl no longer rely on
>>>>>> RemovalAware collections.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Start working on that stuff, but it's not finished yet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> regards,
>>>>>> Armin
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Armin Waibel wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Brian,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Brian McCallister wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Before I left we had a passing vote for 1.0.2 release
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Last weeks I couldn't spend much time in OJB development.
>>>>>>> There are still some failing test cases. I will have a look at
>>>>>>> this tomorrow, modify the test classes to skip failing tests and
>>>>>>> add notes to the release-notes file.
>>>>>>> Could we put off the deadline one day?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Armin
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Did anyone ever make it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If not, i can tonight.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -Brian
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
Re: 1.0.2?
Posted by Jakob Braeuchi <jb...@gmx.ch>.
hi armin,
Armin Waibel schrieb:
> Hi Jakob,
>
> Jakob Braeuchi wrote:
>
>> hi armin,
>>
>> i have a patched object-envelope that works for deletes and passes all
>> testcases without errors. it's not so elegant because the map includes
>> the whole collection for 1:n relationships. but i can send you the
>> code if you like.
>>
>
> great! If your patch fit all requirements check it in.
it does of course not fit all of the requirements on your list ;)
i only tried to solve the problem when objects are removed from a collection or
array.
you're list of problem is quite long ! but i eventually have to add another one:
when i walked the collections to detect new / deleted objects i found a strange
issue.
oldCol is a collection of proxies and newObj is a prox contained in oldCol:
Object newObj = newIter.next();
if ((oldCol != null) && (!oldCol.contains(newObj)))
but contains() returns false ! after some digging i found that equals() does not
work properly for proxies.
proxyA.equals(proxyB)
in InvocationHandler#invoke proxyA object is converted to the realSubject so
equals is invoked on the realSubject with proxyB as argument; needless to
mention that this will return false.
jakob
>
> The problems I found (and try to correct with my patch) for current
> ObjectEnvelope class are:
>
> - Think when the image is done proxy objects and proxy references will
> be materialized (e.g. reference objects can be proxies itself too)
>
> - The image map (ObjectEnvelope#getMap(...)) contains all persistent
> object field values and the comparison is done between different image
> maps. But not all field values of persistent objects are comparable via
> equals-methods (ObjectEnvelope#hasChanged(...)).
> E.g. complex fields fields like arrays or fields using a FieldConversion
> from an String[] to String. If the user change one array entry the
> change will not be detected (because both maps refer to the same array
> object).
> Similar problem for byte[], Date fields, ... think we should generate a
> unique hashCode() for arrays or other unique number representation of
> the field (e.g. Date.getTime()...).
>
> - How to handle Array, Clob, Blob, Ref, URL, ... fields in the object
> image. How can we detect changes (think it's not possible).
>
> - How to handle serialized objects (objects pass to client via network
> and serialized version contains changes, in TransactionExt#markDirty I
> fixed this by replacing the object used in ObjectEnvelope, so the
> changes will be detected). We don't have detach/attach support.
>
> - Proxy listener problem? Shouldn't the proxy listener objects be
> removed after object materialization to free the listener objects? A
> object could not be materialized several times, so why keep the listener?
>
> - detection of new and deleted referenced objects in 1:1, 1:n m:n
> references
>
> - If the user remove an referenced object, e.g. remove an referenced
> object from the collection of a 1:n, m:n reference, the removed object
> should not be deleted, the removed reference should only be "unlinked".
> Only if method Database.deletePersistent(...) was called an object
> should be deleted. This behavior would allow proper handling of m:n
> relations (unlink means remove from indirection table).
> Assume in current implementation the behavior isn't consistent, maybe
> I'm wrong.
>
> Did you found more issues in current ODMG implementation?
>
> regards,
> Armin
>
>
>> jakob
>>
>> Armin Waibel schrieb:
>>
>>> Hi Jakob,
>>>
>>> Jakob Braeuchi wrote:
>>>
>>>> hi brian, armin,
>>>>
>>>> what's going on for 1.0.2 ?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry, feel a little drained, so I don't spend much time on OJB.
>>> Will try to finish work on weekend, otherwise we should release 1.0.2
>>> without improved ObjectEnvelope class (and include these changes in
>>> 1.0.3) - release at Sunday?
>>>
>>> regards,
>>> Armin
>>>
>>>
>>>> jakob
>>>>
>>>> Armin Waibel schrieb:
>>>>
>>>>> update release notes, modify test case.
>>>>>
>>>>> But get still two failures when run odmg test cases. Think the
>>>>> failures are a result of the changes made in handling of the
>>>>> ManageableCollection#.afterStore(...)
>>>>> in PBImpl (call only when auto-update 'OBJECT' is set).
>>>>>
>>>>> To fix this problem we have to improve ObjectEnvelope (encapsulates
>>>>> a persistent object) internal object image to detect new and
>>>>> deleted references. Then the new/deleted references could be
>>>>> handled on odmg level and ODMG-impl no longer rely on RemovalAware
>>>>> collections.
>>>>>
>>>>> Start working on that stuff, but it's not finished yet.
>>>>>
>>>>> regards,
>>>>> Armin
>>>>>
>>>>> Armin Waibel wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Brian,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Brian McCallister wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Before I left we had a passing vote for 1.0.2 release
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Last weeks I couldn't spend much time in OJB development.
>>>>>> There are still some failing test cases. I will have a look at
>>>>>> this tomorrow, modify the test classes to skip failing tests and
>>>>>> add notes to the release-notes file.
>>>>>> Could we put off the deadline one day?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Armin
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Did anyone ever make it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If not, i can tonight.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Brian
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
Re: 1.0.2?
Posted by Armin Waibel <ar...@apache.org>.
Hi Jakob,
Jakob Braeuchi wrote:
> hi armin,
>
> i have a patched object-envelope that works for deletes and passes all
> testcases without errors. it's not so elegant because the map includes
> the whole collection for 1:n relationships. but i can send you the code
> if you like.
>
great! If your patch fit all requirements check it in.
The problems I found (and try to correct with my patch) for current
ObjectEnvelope class are:
- Think when the image is done proxy objects and proxy references will
be materialized (e.g. reference objects can be proxies itself too)
- The image map (ObjectEnvelope#getMap(...)) contains all persistent
object field values and the comparison is done between different image
maps. But not all field values of persistent objects are comparable via
equals-methods (ObjectEnvelope#hasChanged(...)).
E.g. complex fields fields like arrays or fields using a FieldConversion
from an String[] to String. If the user change one array entry the
change will not be detected (because both maps refer to the same array
object).
Similar problem for byte[], Date fields, ... think we should generate a
unique hashCode() for arrays or other unique number representation of
the field (e.g. Date.getTime()...).
- How to handle Array, Clob, Blob, Ref, URL, ... fields in the object
image. How can we detect changes (think it's not possible).
- How to handle serialized objects (objects pass to client via network
and serialized version contains changes, in TransactionExt#markDirty I
fixed this by replacing the object used in ObjectEnvelope, so the
changes will be detected). We don't have detach/attach support.
- Proxy listener problem? Shouldn't the proxy listener objects be
removed after object materialization to free the listener objects? A
object could not be materialized several times, so why keep the listener?
- detection of new and deleted referenced objects in 1:1, 1:n m:n references
- If the user remove an referenced object, e.g. remove an referenced
object from the collection of a 1:n, m:n reference, the removed object
should not be deleted, the removed reference should only be "unlinked".
Only if method Database.deletePersistent(...) was called an object
should be deleted. This behavior would allow proper handling of m:n
relations (unlink means remove from indirection table).
Assume in current implementation the behavior isn't consistent, maybe
I'm wrong.
Did you found more issues in current ODMG implementation?
regards,
Armin
> jakob
>
> Armin Waibel schrieb:
>
>> Hi Jakob,
>>
>> Jakob Braeuchi wrote:
>>
>>> hi brian, armin,
>>>
>>> what's going on for 1.0.2 ?
>>>
>>
>> Sorry, feel a little drained, so I don't spend much time on OJB.
>> Will try to finish work on weekend, otherwise we should release 1.0.2
>> without improved ObjectEnvelope class (and include these changes in
>> 1.0.3) - release at Sunday?
>>
>> regards,
>> Armin
>>
>>
>>> jakob
>>>
>>> Armin Waibel schrieb:
>>>
>>>> update release notes, modify test case.
>>>>
>>>> But get still two failures when run odmg test cases. Think the
>>>> failures are a result of the changes made in handling of the
>>>> ManageableCollection#.afterStore(...)
>>>> in PBImpl (call only when auto-update 'OBJECT' is set).
>>>>
>>>> To fix this problem we have to improve ObjectEnvelope (encapsulates
>>>> a persistent object) internal object image to detect new and deleted
>>>> references. Then the new/deleted references could be handled on odmg
>>>> level and ODMG-impl no longer rely on RemovalAware collections.
>>>>
>>>> Start working on that stuff, but it's not finished yet.
>>>>
>>>> regards,
>>>> Armin
>>>>
>>>> Armin Waibel wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Brian,
>>>>>
>>>>> Brian McCallister wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Before I left we had a passing vote for 1.0.2 release
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Last weeks I couldn't spend much time in OJB development.
>>>>> There are still some failing test cases. I will have a look at this
>>>>> tomorrow, modify the test classes to skip failing tests and add
>>>>> notes to the release-notes file.
>>>>> Could we put off the deadline one day?
>>>>>
>>>>> Armin
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Did anyone ever make it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If not, i can tonight.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Brian
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
Re: 1.0.2?
Posted by Jakob Braeuchi <jb...@gmx.ch>.
hi armin,
i have a patched object-envelope that works for deletes and passes all testcases
without errors. it's not so elegant because the map includes the whole
collection for 1:n relationships. but i can send you the code if you like.
jakob
Armin Waibel schrieb:
> Hi Jakob,
>
> Jakob Braeuchi wrote:
>
>> hi brian, armin,
>>
>> what's going on for 1.0.2 ?
>>
>
> Sorry, feel a little drained, so I don't spend much time on OJB.
> Will try to finish work on weekend, otherwise we should release 1.0.2
> without improved ObjectEnvelope class (and include these changes in
> 1.0.3) - release at Sunday?
>
> regards,
> Armin
>
>
>> jakob
>>
>> Armin Waibel schrieb:
>>
>>> update release notes, modify test case.
>>>
>>> But get still two failures when run odmg test cases. Think the
>>> failures are a result of the changes made in handling of the
>>> ManageableCollection#.afterStore(...)
>>> in PBImpl (call only when auto-update 'OBJECT' is set).
>>>
>>> To fix this problem we have to improve ObjectEnvelope (encapsulates a
>>> persistent object) internal object image to detect new and deleted
>>> references. Then the new/deleted references could be handled on odmg
>>> level and ODMG-impl no longer rely on RemovalAware collections.
>>>
>>> Start working on that stuff, but it's not finished yet.
>>>
>>> regards,
>>> Armin
>>>
>>> Armin Waibel wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Brian,
>>>>
>>>> Brian McCallister wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Before I left we had a passing vote for 1.0.2 release
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Last weeks I couldn't spend much time in OJB development.
>>>> There are still some failing test cases. I will have a look at this
>>>> tomorrow, modify the test classes to skip failing tests and add
>>>> notes to the release-notes file.
>>>> Could we put off the deadline one day?
>>>>
>>>> Armin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Did anyone ever make it?
>>>>>
>>>>> If not, i can tonight.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Brian
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
Re: 1.0.2?
Posted by Armin Waibel <ar...@apache.org>.
Hi Jakob,
Jakob Braeuchi wrote:
> hi brian, armin,
>
> what's going on for 1.0.2 ?
>
Sorry, feel a little drained, so I don't spend much time on OJB.
Will try to finish work on weekend, otherwise we should release 1.0.2
without improved ObjectEnvelope class (and include these changes in
1.0.3) - release at Sunday?
regards,
Armin
> jakob
>
> Armin Waibel schrieb:
>
>> update release notes, modify test case.
>>
>> But get still two failures when run odmg test cases. Think the
>> failures are a result of the changes made in handling of the
>> ManageableCollection#.afterStore(...)
>> in PBImpl (call only when auto-update 'OBJECT' is set).
>>
>> To fix this problem we have to improve ObjectEnvelope (encapsulates a
>> persistent object) internal object image to detect new and deleted
>> references. Then the new/deleted references could be handled on odmg
>> level and ODMG-impl no longer rely on RemovalAware collections.
>>
>> Start working on that stuff, but it's not finished yet.
>>
>> regards,
>> Armin
>>
>> Armin Waibel wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Brian,
>>>
>>> Brian McCallister wrote:
>>>
>>>> Before I left we had a passing vote for 1.0.2 release
>>>>
>>>
>>> Last weeks I couldn't spend much time in OJB development.
>>> There are still some failing test cases. I will have a look at this
>>> tomorrow, modify the test classes to skip failing tests and add notes
>>> to the release-notes file.
>>> Could we put off the deadline one day?
>>>
>>> Armin
>>>
>>>
>>>> Did anyone ever make it?
>>>>
>>>> If not, i can tonight.
>>>>
>>>> -Brian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org