Set auto-update=none in the child's reference to the parent, if I
understand you correctly.
Pulat
Laran Evans wrote:
My meta-question is Is verioning configurable with respect to object locking?
That said, here's my scenario.
I have a parent Object and child objects. When I change a child (a
Perhaps, native German speakers created the documentation, and I
appreciate their effort. If anything needs to be improved, anyone is
free to submit patches for peer review or file a feature or bug request.
Pulat
Bobby Lawrence wrote:
Whats up with all the German (or whatever foreign language)
I'd like to thank everyone for your valuable input.
Season's greetings!
Pulat
Pulat Yunusov wrote:
Is there a list of OJB security vulnerabilities: current and closed? Is
this information regularly collected or posted and where, in this list?
Thank you,
Pulat
Your template likely refers to an instance with the default value for
the primary key field, which is 0, and there is no record with PK equal
to zero in your database.
Pulat
Annapoorani Rathi wrote:
Hi,
I just started on OJB..
In PB Tutorial, the code snippet does not fetch me the record
I don't think what you want is possible because it goes against concepts
of row indentity and referential integrity.
A foreign key in one table implies a relation to the primary key in the
other table, and there can be only one primary key.
The normal way to specify the relationship you want
What is a context?
Francisco Bruno wrote:
OJB doesn't work simultaneously with some contexts?
[],
Francisco Bruno
-
Faça as coisas o mais simples que você puder, porém não as mais
Can you please modify your mailer so it doesn't request return receipts?
Thank you,
Pulat
Stark, Roman wrote:
For the past tow days I tried to set up the ojb-blank project.
Everything I try ends up with the following message: There was no
default-PBKey specified
I am using eclips 3 for the project
Grab size refers to the number of consecutive values from which the
sequence manager issues primary keys until it reaches a value equal to
the max_key - 1. Then the max_key is increased by the grab size, and the
sequence manager continues to issue primary keys until it exhausts the
sequence
forward, then
went incremental for a week or so and then jumped back and started
overwriting existing objects, which obviously isnt good.
I've decided to convert to letting mysql do the incrementing, and tell ojb
to use native impl.
Daniel.
-Original Message-
From: Pulat Yunusov [mailto
objects, which obviously isnt good.
I've decided to convert to letting mysql do the incrementing,
and tell ojb
to use native impl.
Daniel.
-Original Message-
From: Pulat Yunusov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 18 October 2004 15:19
To: OJB Users List
Subject: Re: HighLowSequenceManager
Thank you, Armin. I am testing it now.
Pulat
Armin Waibel wrote:
Hi,
fixed in CVS (OJB 1.0.x branch OJB_1_0_RELEASE)
Armin
Armin Waibel wrote:
Hi Pulat,
Pulat Yunusov wrote:
Currently, all PersistenceBrokers that use SequenceManagerHighLowImpl
share one Map for keeping sequences. That map keys
We add and remove descriptor and connection repositories during our
application lifecycle using MetadataManager. It seems useful and logical
to have listener interfaces for DescriptorRepository and
ConnectionRepository because some objects need to cleanup their state
when the metadata is
Instantiate the SequenceManager class you're interested in and set any
parameters it may need directly via its set methods. Beware that such
sequence managers as HighLowImpl and InMemoryImpl maintain sequences in
static members rather than in instance state so you'll have to
distinguish
Currently, all PersistenceBrokers that use SequenceManagerHighLowImpl
share one Map for keeping sequences. That map keys sequences essentially
by table name in many common cases.
I understand if two databases have tables with the same name, accessing
them within a single OJB instance will lead
Kollivakkam,
Is the value in your MOD_NUM incremented properly every time the record
is updated? I am asking because I have a problem using the version field
for optimistic locking.
Thanks,
Pulat
Kollivakkam R. Raghavan wrote:
No our application is one where client and server need to
to the DTD at http://db.apache.org/ojb/repository.dtd.txt, the
default value of update-lock is true. I am using OJB 1.0.0. Have I found
a bug, and has anybody else experienced this?
Thanks,
Pulat
Pulat Yunusov wrote:
According to the OJB FAQ the version column is incremented each time
changes
RepositoryXmlHandler.java to
'debug'.
When using OJB default logger simply change entry for this class to
'debug' in OJB-logging.properties
regards,
Armin
Pulat Yunusov wrote:
I found that update-lock is false by default, that is when I don't
specify it in the locking field descriptor. When I set
);
if(checkString(updateLock))
{
b = (Boolean.valueOf(updateLock)).booleanValue();
m_CurrentFLD.setUpdateLock(b);
}
This should fix the bug.
regards
Armin
Pulat Yunusov wrote:
Thanks for your reply, Armin.
Using a debugger I found that RepositoryXmlHandler sets updateLock to
false when update
No problem, Armin. :)
Pulat
Armin Waibel wrote:
Pulat Yunusov wrote:
Great, Armin. Are you committing this to CVS any time soon?
Thanks,
Done! It's in CVS now (both 1.1 trunk and 1.0.x branch - OJB_1_0_RELEASE).
Thanks for bag this bug ;-)
Armin
Pulat
Armin Waibel wrote:
In statement 3 above
Logging levels are set in the OJB.properties files. Find a line that
specifies the logging level for your implementation of SQL generator,
e.g.
org.apache.ojb.broker.accesslayer.sql.SqlGeneratorDefaultImpl.LogLevel=WARN,
and put the appropriate value in (DEBUG).
Around that part of the file,
According to the OJB FAQ the version column is incremented each time
changes are committed to the object. The version column is the column
described in field-descriptors with the locking attribute set to true.
However, I have never ever seen values in this column other than the
default of
through property accessors).
-Brian
On Sep 13, 2004, at 6:53 PM, Pulat Yunusov wrote:
What is the purpose of anonymous keys? Given class A and class B where
class A has a reference to class B, I removed setId() from both classes,
and setBId() and getBId() from class A. I still have private members
What is the purpose of anonymous keys? Given class A and class B where
class A has a reference to class B, I removed setId() from both classes,
and setBId() and getBId() from class A. I still have private members id
in both classes, and bId in class A as well as all corresponding field
and
23 matches
Mail list logo
