: Monday, December 08, 2003 7:50 PM
To: OJB Users List
Subject: Re: JDO Bug (status please)
Yes I seem to have confirmed that it is a problem with getting the
wrong Persistence Manager. I changed PrepareTX() to look like this:
private TXData prepareTX() {
TXData td = new TXData
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 7:50 PM
To: OJB Users List
Subject: Re: JDO Bug (status please)
Yes I seem to have confirmed that it is a problem with
getting the wrong
Persistence Manager. I changed PrepareTX() to look like this:
private TXData prepareTX
is not a workaround, but just
the right thing to do!
cheers,
Thomas
-Original Message-
From: Gus Heck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 7:50 PM
To: OJB Users List
Subject: Re: JDO Bug (status please)
Yes I seem to have confirmed that it is a problem with
getting
On Dec 9, 2003, at 2:04 PM, Gus Heck wrote:
Well I have discovered that my feeling that casting to
PersistenceCapable was wrong is correct.
I prefer the term evil for this part of the spec ;-) (sorry Matt)
-Brian
-
To
I call the requirement that any persistent class implement
PersistenceCapable an evil part of the spec for the SPI as it is
completely unnecessary. If a vendor chooses to use bytecode
enhancement/generation/etc they are welcome to, but to require it as
part of the spec is just annoying and
soon!
Thomas
-Original Message-
From: Gus Heck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 7:59 PM
To: OJB Users List
Subject: Re: JDO Bug (status please)
I just got bit by this, despite the fact I had read this thread. I
forgot and coded a method that asked if an object
-Original Message-
From: Gus Heck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 7:59 PM
To: OJB Users List
Subject: Re: JDO Bug (status please)
I just got bit by this, despite the fact I had read this thread.
I forgot and coded a method that asked if an object is
persistant
-Gus
Mahler Thomas wrote:
Hi Gus,
Yes, I hope to get my hands on the open JDO issues very soon!
Thomas
-Original Message-
From: Gus Heck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 7:59 PM
To: OJB Users List
Subject: Re: JDO Bug (status please)
I just got bit
-
From: Gus Heck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 7:59 PM
To: OJB Users List
Subject: Re: JDO Bug (status please)
I just got bit by this, despite the fact I had read this thread. I
forgot and coded a method that asked if an object is persistant, and
if not caused it to get
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 7:59 PM
To: OJB Users List
Subject: Re: JDO Bug (status please)
I just got bit by this, despite the fact I had read this thread. I
forgot and coded a method that asked if an object is
persistant, and if
not caused it to get a new ID and make itself
Hi Gus,
Yes, I hope to get my hands on the open JDO issues very soon!
Thomas
-Original Message-
From: Gus Heck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 7:59 PM
To: OJB Users List
Subject: Re: JDO Bug (status please)
I just got bit by this, despite the fact I
Hi Nick,
Hi-
An earlier thread on this list:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg03832.html
describes a _serious_ bug in the JDO interface to OJB.
I posted about this last week and haven't gotten a response yet. I'm
really hoping that someone can shed some light on the
Hi-
An earlier thread on this list:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg03832.html
describes a _serious_ bug in the JDO interface to OJB.
I posted about this last week and haven't gotten a response yet. I'm
really hoping that someone can shed some light on the status of this
issue,
13 matches
Mail list logo
