I hate to be a party pooper, but I have another concern ...
Now that I can insert again (thanks!), I run into this problem.
Given:
CollectionElement ->> Item <<- Notification
If I insert an Item (it is just a many-to-many linkage table) in one
request, and then immediately delete it again in the next request,
I am
getting optimistic locking exceptions. If I restart the app, I
can then
go in and delete it. Here are some of the logs when doing the
delete:
item (starting out):
PID=0x00000000000000225c85a35e]{<ObjectId:PSEnumeratedItem,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; committed;
[collectionElement=>{<ObjectId:PSLocalCollectionElement,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>}; moniker=>ES;
notification=>{<ObjectId:FENotification, [EMAIL PROTECTED]>}]}
collectionElement.removeFromItems(item);
[PID=0x00000000000000225c85a35e]{<ObjectId:PSEnumeratedItem,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; modified; [collectionElement=>null;
moniker=>ES;
notification=>{<ObjectId:FENotification, [EMAIL PROTECTED]>}]}
notification.removeFromItems(item);
[PID=0x00000000000000225c85a35e]{<ObjectId:PSEnumeratedItem,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; modified; [collectionElement=>null;
moniker=>ES;
notification=>null]}
dataContext.deleteObject(item);
[PID=0x00000000000000225c85a35e]{<ObjectId:PSEnumeratedItem,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; deleted; [collectionElement=>null;
moniker=>ES;
notification=>null]}
dataContext.commitChanges();
org.objectstyle.cayenne.access.QueryLogger - DELETE FROM PS_Item
WHERE
identifier = ? AND elementPID IS NULL AND moniker = ? AND
objectPID IS
NULL
org.objectstyle.cayenne.access.QueryLogger - [bind: < 00 00 00 00
00 00
00 22 5C 85 A3 5E >, NULL, 'ES', NULL]
org.objectstyle.cayenne.access.QueryLogger - *** error.
org.objectstyle.cayenne.access.OptimisticLockException: [v.1.2M12
March
23 2006] Optimistic Lock Failure, SQL: [DELETE FROM PS_Item WHERE
identifier = ? AND elementPID IS NULL AND moniker = ? AND
objectPID IS
NULL], WHERE clause bindings: [moniker='ES', identifier=< 00 00 00
00 00
00 00 22 5C 85 A3 5E >, objectPID=NULL, elementPID=NULL]
Ignore the 1.2M12 -- I'm running against the latest from Subversion
within Eclipse (guess that M12 the last time I did a full build using
ant). The bind output is also misleading -- 4 values for 2 ?'s (I
thought I fixed that at one point, but maybe that was for UPDATE
only).
Anyway, this code used to work in 1.2M9 (and earlier). I use
optimistic
locking on everything, but there are no cascade/etc delete rules.
I'll experiment/debug more, just thought I'd report it in case you
were
trying to put out the release.
Thanks!
/dev/mrg
-----Original Message-----
From: Andrus Adamchik [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ]
Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 10:33 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Final release?
Let's at least submit this as a bug. I think I may have an older
Linux box where I can put Sybase and play with a solution that I had
in mind.
In any event whatever fix we end up with, it should be possible to
stick it in a custom PkGenerator, so it shouldn't be a problem for
1.2 users if it goes in release 3.0 (and we can port it to 1.2.1 as
well).
Andrus
On Jul 6, 2006, at 10:16 AM, Gentry, Michael ((Contractor)) wrote:
> My biggest concern right now is the Sybase PK question. If I
can get
> our DBA (who is out right now) to set me up a playground somewhere,
> I'll
> test it. Of course, we could decide to handle that as a bug
fix, too.
> Either way, I won't be upgrading past M9 for a bit ...
>
> Thanks,
>
> /dev/mrg
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrus Adamchik [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 11:07 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Final release?
>
>
> I think it's time to make the final release of 1.2 and move ahead
> with other things that we planned. I am working on finishing the
> documentation (namely remote object persistence tutorial), and
fixing
> last minute bugs. I think we are in a good shape overall. So how
> about a release sometime early next week.
>
> Comments? Objections?
>
> Andrus
>
