This one time, at band camp, Edward Sumerfield said:
ES>RE: [castor-dev] [JDO] bug 1107 Timestamp mismatched exception when using
longtransactionI haven't implemented this but was thinking I might try it. Anyone
think it would help?
ES>
ES>All the getKey methods in your castor classes should have a corresponding
getKeyLongTx that returns the actual key value concatenated with the jdoTimestamp. The
corresponding setKeyLongTx would split the values and store them appropriatly back
into the original object.
ES>
ES>class Person implements TimeStampable
ES>{
ES> private long m_timeStamp = 0;
ES> private long int m_key;
ES>
ES>
ES> public String getPrimaryKeyLongTx()
ES> {
ES> StringBuffer primaryKeyLongTx = new StringBuffer();
ES> primaryKeyLongTx.append(String.valueOf(jdoGetTimeStamp()));
ES> primaryKeyLongTx.append("|");
ES> primaryKeyLongTx.append(String.valueOf(getPrimaryKey()));
ES> return primaryKeyLongTx.toString();
ES> }
ES>
ES> public void setPrimaryKeyLongTx(String a_primaryKeyLongTx)
ES> {
ES> int barPos = a_primaryKeyLongTx.indexOf('|');
ES> String timestamp = a_primaryKeyLongTx.substring(0, barPos);
ES> String primaryKey = a_primaryKeyLongTx.substring(barPos + 1);
ES> jdoSetTimeStamp(Integer.parseInt(timestamp));
ES> setPrimaryKey(Integer.parseInt(primaryKey));
ES> }
ES>
ES> public void jdoSetTimeStamp(long a_timeStamp)
ES> {
ES> m_timeStamp = a_timeStamp;
ES> }
ES>
ES> public long jdoGetTimeStamp()
ES> {
ES> return m_timeStamp;
ES> }
ES>
ES> public int getPrimaryKey()
ES> {
ES> return m_key;
ES> }
ES>
ES> public void setPrimaryKey(int a_key)
ES> {
ES> m_key = a_key);
ES> }
ES>}
Ed,
When and where would this be used? Please explain the idea behind this, I'm a
bit slow today as I'm not feeling well.
On a side note, I want to speak to you about your post here:
http://www.brainopolis.com/castorwiki/Wiki.jsp?page=CastorCommonsLogging
I am actually in the process of refactoring Castor's logging mechanism. I
tried using the class posted in the Wiki but did not receive the expected
log statements.
At this point I'm torn between whether to make use of Jakarta Commons Logging
or just straight Log4J. The Commons Logging would be nice to implement from a
user perspective because users can choose the logging mechanism that is used.
However, the following article seems to indicate that things as simple as
changing the logging threshold are impossible:
http://www.zdnet.com.au/builder/program/java/story/0,2000034779,20272367,00.htm
But the article does indicate that this type of configuration changes
should be handled via the application that's using the logging.
So I'm torn here. What's your opinion?
Bruce
--
perl -e 'print unpack("u30","<0G)[EMAIL PROTECTED]&5R\"F9E<G)E=\$\!F<FEI+F-O;0\`\`");'
-----------------------------------------------------------
If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing, send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of:
unsubscribe castor-dev
