Hi Stefano,
On Friday 11 June 2004 10:46, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'll send my configuration, but I am quite busy right now and I have to
isolate the test case from my system. I'll do that nex week.
Okay, then send me a snippet of your repository.xml with those two classes
and the code
Hi Stefano,
Could you you prepare a testcase? E.g. with ProductGroup and Articles which
are dynamic proxies? That would really help.
Thanks,
Oleg
On Thursday 10 June 2004 09:20, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
I did not manage to declare a bug in the bug tracking systme, so here it
is.
On Wednesday 14 April 2004 15:51, Brian McCallister wrote:
Have I missed something? Are there any new performance tests?
Armin emailed the -dev list a few days back =)
What was the subject? Still can't find.
-
To unsubscribe,
On Tuesday 13 April 2004 15:17, Brian McCallister wrote:
Huh, the ODMG slower thing is interesting as Armin just reemed us all
out for letting the OTM get so much slower than ODMG ;-)
Have I missed something? Are there any new performance tests?
When I tested last time, OTM was somewhat faster.
Hi Rouven,
My idea was wrong, PersistenceBrokerImpl.java doesn't have conditional
compilation directives, so line numbers in the stack trace should match
the source file.
Please, look at your file PersistenceBrokerImpl.java and tell me what is in
the line 1299 and around. JDK shouldn't show
Hi Joerg,
Are you aware of the proxy collections feature?
I guess this is exactly what you need.
Regards,
Oleg
On Tuesday 09 March 2004 14:11, Joerg Heinicke wrote:
Hello,
I have a question about the controllability of auto-retrieve of dependent
collections in OTM. I know about the
Hi Rouven and all,
I am a bit disappointed: the line number 1299 in the stack trace don't match
the OJB_1_0_RC5 tagged source file PersistenceBrokerImpl.java (revision 1.60)
There is a try keyword in that line, and nothing about batch mode around.
Any ideas?
BTW, is it Sun JDK 1.2.2_014?
Hi Scott,
I did very simple fix, I hope it will work for you.
Regards,
Oleg
On Monday 01 March 2004 19:35, Weaver, Scott wrote:
Actually, this stack trace from sys out might prove more insightful.
p.s. I am using a CVS HEAD version from yesterday.
java.lang.NullPointerException
Hi Joerg,
I have fixed this issue too. You are extremely productive tester! :-)
Oleg
On Tuesday 02 March 2004 16:39, Joerg Heinicke wrote:
My persons have a name, changing this one and making this change persistent
does not update the database. After makePersistent(debitor) it contains
again
On Wednesday 03 March 2004 16:50, Weaver, Scott wrote:
Removing these appears to have fixed this:
auto-delete=true
auto-update=true
auto-retrieve=true
I thought OTM could co-exists with these settings? I guess I was wrong.
auto-retrieve=true is okay
AFAIK auto-update=true and
Hi Brian,
I am trying to support long transactions in OTM. I didn't keep them in mind
before, but now I realized that original Raghu design contains even a special
package - swizzling - which is a way of doing long transactions.
I.e. otmconn.makePersisntent() should work similar to
Hi David,
If you use otm-dependent relations, then check the current CVS HEAD - I've
just committed the fix. If not, then give more detailed description of your
case.
Regards,
Oleg
On Sunday 29 February 2004 08:09, David Le Strat wrote:
Hello there,
I am using OTM with M-N mapping. I am
On Sunday 29 February 2004 19:24, David Le Strat wrote:
When I update the NodeImpl with new nodeProperties (a
collection), only the NodeImpl object gets updated and
the nodeProperies are not created.
I have done this in the past with PB with out any
issues. Any suggestions?
With
Hi Joerg,
I think I have solved all the problems that you mentioned, and even more ;-)
I confirm that otm-dependent=true must be used with auto-update=false.
Thank you very must for the ideal bug report! :-)
Regards,
Oleg
On Tuesday 24 February 2004 17:45, Joerg Heinicke wrote:
Hello,
I'm
Hi Jason,
On Saturday 31 January 2004 20:18, Jason Woodard wrote:
but most of the delay I'm seeing (20 minutes vs. 10 seconds) is not
the JDBC calls but everything OJB does afterward to hook the bits of
the object back together.
This result is really amazing: 20 minutes for purely in-memory
that.
I would appreciate any help, because the turnaround is so bad that I
would prefer to drop it.
Best regards
Andre Legendre
Oleg Nitz wrote:
Hi Andre,
This is more like incorrect usage of Collection.toArray() method
than OJB related problem.
Please print emptyArray
On Wednesday 28 January 2004 17:01, A Leg wrote:
Thanks very much for your help.
I better understand now.
In fact I did'nt want particulary use dynmic proxy. I put it because I
look at some examples to create my repository file (I am quite lasy!)
Effectively, with my workaround it works good.
Hi Andre,
This is more like incorrect usage of Collection.toArray() method
than OJB related problem.
Please print emptyArray and emptyArray.length before the line
MGT_Request[] resArray = (MGT_Request[])acc.toArray(emptyArray);
Is emptyArray not null?
Is emptyArray.length really 0?
Hi Tadeus,
The bugs are now fixed in CVS.
Regards,
Oleg
On Wednesday 14 January 2004 09:39, Tadeus Garsva wrote:
Hi,
I have a Class A with 1:n relation to Class B. Collection descriptor is
with proxy=true.
Collection of class A have more objects than prefetching limit. During
prefetching
Hi Guillaume,
You may download the source distro from http://db.apache.org/builds/ojb/1.0.rc5/
and get the BatchConnection.java file via web CVS
http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/db-ojb/src/java/org/apache/ojb/broker/util/batch/BatchConnection.java
(click 'download' by right mouse button and
Hi Guillaume,
Please translate the text of the exception into English and give more details
about this case. Is GNT the name of the table? What are related objects for
GNT involved into this thansaction?
And the most important question is:
Do all database constraints correspond to some
.
-Message d'origine-
De : Oleg Nitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Envoyé : mardi 13 janvier 2004 12:26
À : OJB Users List
Objet : Re: Batch mode and foreign keys
Hi Guillaume,
Please translate the text of the exception into English and give more
details
about this case. Is GNT the name
and contains only primary keys and foreign keys,
so all constraints should be known by OJB.
-Message d'origine-
De : Oleg Nitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Envoyé : mardi 13 janvier 2004 12:26
À : OJB Users List
Objet : Re: Batch mode and foreign keys
Hi Guillaume,
Please translate
Hi Stéphane,
sorry for the delay. Unfortunately, the stack trace doesn't show line numbers
for OJB classes. Probably this is because the jar for the release is build
without debug info.
Also I would like to know which version do you use.
That would be great if you get RC5 sources, build target
Hello Thierry,
This sounds reasonable, I've changed the hashCode as you propose.
Oleg
On Monday 15 December 2003 11:51, Thierry Hanot wrote:
I use proxies for loading and accessing object by references .
On all the implementation and interface of my objects I have a method
equals and
Hi Eric,
Please send the full stack trace of the exception.
Oleg
-Original Message-
From: eric barbe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 10:24:31 +0100
Subject: BATCH-MODE parameter
Hi all,
In order to ameliorate performance, I've tried to set batch-mode
On Tuesday 02 December 2003 17:06, Andy Malakov wrote:
Can you please confirm that association prefetching mechanism in OJB
queries currently (CVS) does not support M:N associations?
Yes, this is true.
Regards,
Oleg
-
To
-Original Message-
From: Glauber Andrade [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 09:45:13 -0300
Subject: too slow!
I am using OJB and Mysql (4.0.16) (with mysql-connector-java-3.0.9-stable)
in an swing application and the system is too slow. A simple query whith
Hi, Gunnar,
Are you using ODMG or OTM?
Is it fresh CVS version of OJB or one of the releases? Which one?
Oleg
On Tuesday 04 November 2003 00:20, Gunnar Hilling wrote:
Hello!
I got the following code:
for (int i = 0; i 10; i++) {
Zertifikat zertifikat = new Zertifikat();
Hi Brian,
I have fixed the OTM bug (M:N relations wasn't updated).
Thanks for detailed bug report.
Regards,
Oleg
On Tuesday 14 October 2003 14:16, Brian McCallister wrote:
On Tuesday, October 14, 2003, at 09:33 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hej Brian,
-Original Message-
From:
Hi!
Let me introduce the new feature which was committed to the CVS HEAD
yesterday.
proxy-prefetching-limit is a new attribute that was added to the following
elements of repository.xml:
descriptor-repository
class-descriptor
reference-descriptor
collection-descriptor
The default value
Hi Michael,
I have applied your patch. I don't inderstand why does this make difference,
which collection type is used internally by prefetcher, but I also don't see
any drawbacks of your changes.
Regards,
Oleg
On Wednesday 24 September 2003 17:11, Michael Schulze wrote:
Hi again,
sorry
32 matches
Mail list logo
