You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@openjpa.apache.org by Pinaki Poddar <pp...@apache.org> on 2012/09/12 03:37:13 UTC
Re: audit?
OpenJPA audit allows the user to choose how the audit records are treated. It
does not make any decision to store the audited record to be stored in the
same database. But that is entirely possible because the audit record
carries the states of the persistent object when it entered the persistent
context and when it is ready to be committed. However, OpenJPA audit allow
the audit record be stored in an entoirely different database or schema as
well.
-----
Pinaki Poddar
Chair, Apache OpenJPA Project
--
View this message in context: http://openjpa.208410.n2.nabble.com/audit-tp6901099p7581073.html
Sent from the OpenJPA Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: audit?
Posted by Jim Talbut <jt...@spudsoft.co.uk>.
On 12/09/2012 17:30, Pinaki Poddar wrote:
>> It looks like Pinaki fixed this problem in trunk yesterday.
> Possibly -- added a rather weak test to verify memory growth. The original
> reporter should verify.
I'll get on to this as soon as I can.
Unfortunately I've just had a load of high priority work thrown at me :(
Jim
Re: audit?
Posted by Pinaki Poddar <pp...@apache.org>.
> It looks like Pinaki fixed this problem in trunk yesterday.
Possibly -- added a rather weak test to verify memory growth. The original
reporter should verify.
-----
Pinaki Poddar
Chair, Apache OpenJPA Project
--
View this message in context: http://openjpa.208410.n2.nabble.com/audit-tp6901099p7581084.html
Sent from the OpenJPA Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: audit?
Posted by Rick Curtis <cu...@gmail.com>.
Cancel that. It looks like Pinaki fixed this problem in trunk yesterday.
Thanks,
Rick
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Rick Curtis <cu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jim -
>
> Sorry this one fell off my radar... I'll try to get to it today.
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 7:09 AM, Jim Talbut <jt...@spudsoft.co.uk>wrote:
>
>> On 12/09/2012 02:37, Pinaki Poddar wrote:
>>
>>> OpenJPA audit allows the user to choose how the audit records are
>>> treated. It
>>> does not make any decision to store the audited record to be stored in
>>> the
>>> same database. But that is entirely possible because the audit record
>>> carries the states of the persistent object when it entered the
>>> persistent
>>> context and when it is ready to be committed. However, OpenJPA audit
>>> allow
>>> the audit record be stored in an entoirely different database or schema
>>> as
>>> well.
>>>
>> I'm not sure what message Pinaki is replying to, but I would urge caution
>> when using the OpenJPA audit at the moment:
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/OPENJPA-2253<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OPENJPA-2253>
>>
>> This causes a memory leak of every auditable object, which will
>> eventually kill any process.
>> We've had to remove all @Auditable annotations for the time being.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> *Rick Curtis*
>
>
--
*Rick Curtis*
Re: audit?
Posted by Rick Curtis <cu...@gmail.com>.
Jim -
Sorry this one fell off my radar... I'll try to get to it today.
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 7:09 AM, Jim Talbut <jt...@spudsoft.co.uk> wrote:
> On 12/09/2012 02:37, Pinaki Poddar wrote:
>
>> OpenJPA audit allows the user to choose how the audit records are
>> treated. It
>> does not make any decision to store the audited record to be stored in the
>> same database. But that is entirely possible because the audit record
>> carries the states of the persistent object when it entered the persistent
>> context and when it is ready to be committed. However, OpenJPA audit allow
>> the audit record be stored in an entoirely different database or schema as
>> well.
>>
> I'm not sure what message Pinaki is replying to, but I would urge caution
> when using the OpenJPA audit at the moment:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/OPENJPA-2253<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OPENJPA-2253>
>
> This causes a memory leak of every auditable object, which will eventually
> kill any process.
> We've had to remove all @Auditable annotations for the time being.
>
> Jim
>
>
>
--
*Rick Curtis*
Re: audit?
Posted by Jim Talbut <jt...@spudsoft.co.uk>.
On 12/09/2012 02:37, Pinaki Poddar wrote:
> OpenJPA audit allows the user to choose how the audit records are treated. It
> does not make any decision to store the audited record to be stored in the
> same database. But that is entirely possible because the audit record
> carries the states of the persistent object when it entered the persistent
> context and when it is ready to be committed. However, OpenJPA audit allow
> the audit record be stored in an entoirely different database or schema as
> well.
I'm not sure what message Pinaki is replying to, but I would urge
caution when using the OpenJPA audit at the moment:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OPENJPA-2253
This causes a memory leak of every auditable object, which will eventually kill any process.
We've had to remove all @Auditable annotations for the time being.
Jim