You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.

Posted to dev@cayenne.apache.org by Andrus Adamchik <an...@objectstyle.org> on 2006/07/04 17:07:10 UTC

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

Re: Final release?

Posted by Andrus Adamchik <an...@objectstyle.org>.

Sure, let's solve those two issues first. Among other things this'll  
give me more time to finish the documentation.

Andrus


On Jul 7, 2006, at 3:52 PM, Mike Kienenberger wrote:

> I'd also like to hold off on a final release until I can solve my own
> problems introduced after B3.   I probably won't get to it today,
> though.
>
> On 7/7/06, Gentry, Michael (Contractor)  
> <mi...@fanniemae.com> 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=[B@4d5543>; committed;
>> [collectionElement=>{<ObjectId:PSLocalCollectionElement,
>> identifier=[B@96c157>}; moniker=>ES;
>> notification=>{<ObjectId:FENotification, identifier=[B@d36b89>}]}
>>
>> collectionElement.removeFromItems(item);
>> [PID=0x00000000000000225c85a35e]{<ObjectId:PSEnumeratedItem,
>> identifier=[B@4d5543>; modified; [collectionElement=>null;  
>> moniker=>ES;
>> notification=>{<ObjectId:FENotification, identifier=[B@d36b89>}]}
>>
>> notification.removeFromItems(item);
>> [PID=0x00000000000000225c85a35e]{<ObjectId:PSEnumeratedItem,
>> identifier=[B@4d5543>; modified; [collectionElement=>null;  
>> moniker=>ES;
>> notification=>null]}
>>
>> dataContext.deleteObject(item);
>> [PID=0x00000000000000225c85a35e]{<ObjectId:PSEnumeratedItem,
>> identifier=[B@4d5543>; 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:andrus@objectstyle.org
>> <ma...@objectstyle.org> ]
>> Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 10:33 AM
>> To: cayenne-dev@incubator.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:andrus@objectstyle.org
>> <ma...@objectstyle.org> ]
>> > Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 11:07 AM
>> > To: cayenne-dev@incubator.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
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: Final release?

Posted by Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com>.

I'd also like to hold off on a final release until I can solve my own
problems introduced after B3.   I probably won't get to it today,
though.

On 7/7/06, Gentry, Michael (Contractor) <mi...@fanniemae.com> 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=[B@4d5543>; committed;
> [collectionElement=>{<ObjectId:PSLocalCollectionElement,
> identifier=[B@96c157>}; moniker=>ES;
> notification=>{<ObjectId:FENotification, identifier=[B@d36b89>}]}
>
> collectionElement.removeFromItems(item);
> [PID=0x00000000000000225c85a35e]{<ObjectId:PSEnumeratedItem,
> identifier=[B@4d5543>; modified; [collectionElement=>null; moniker=>ES;
> notification=>{<ObjectId:FENotification, identifier=[B@d36b89>}]}
>
> notification.removeFromItems(item);
> [PID=0x00000000000000225c85a35e]{<ObjectId:PSEnumeratedItem,
> identifier=[B@4d5543>; modified; [collectionElement=>null; moniker=>ES;
> notification=>null]}
>
> dataContext.deleteObject(item);
> [PID=0x00000000000000225c85a35e]{<ObjectId:PSEnumeratedItem,
> identifier=[B@4d5543>; 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:andrus@objectstyle.org
> <ma...@objectstyle.org> ]
> Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 10:33 AM
> To: cayenne-dev@incubator.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:andrus@objectstyle.org
> <ma...@objectstyle.org> ]
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 11:07 AM
> > To: cayenne-dev@incubator.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
> >
>
>
>
>
>