I'm not opposed to patches. I'm having to maintain my own 1.2, anyway. :-)
Thanks! /dev/mrg On 4/27/07, Mike Kienenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Michael, this might be fixed if you're using the outer-join patch. I seem to recall a similar situation that was cleaned up when I reorganized the query translator classes. Might be worth a quick check if you don't mind applying the patch and giving it a whirl. On 4/27/07, Michael Gentry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, I've discovered another one (at least in 1.2, which implies 2.0, > also), but haven't tracked it down enough yet. I don't think it has > anything to do with our binary PKs, either. In a nutshell, I had optimistic > locking turned on everything, including relationships and had: > > A ->> B (A to-many-to B) > > When I updated attributes in A and B and committed the changes, I'd get an > optimistic locking exception because the SQL generated looked like: > > UPDATE A set foo = 'bar' > WHERE primaryKey IS NULL AND ... > > For some reason, it is nulling out the PK when figuring out the > differences. (Strangely, it doesn't null out the PK in B -- it was updating > before the A record and the PK was there.) I just haven't had time to track > it down. My solution was to uncheck optimistic locking. > > I'm not opposed to a new release, but I know there is something lurking > there, too. > > Thanks, > > /dev/mrg > > > On 4/27/07, Andrus Adamchik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I wish our next release could have been 3.0M1, and we got very close. > > For my part I need about two weeks of uninterrupted work on Cayenne - > > something I can't afford now :-/ > > > > Nevertheless, we have 13 closed bugs on each of the stable branches > > (1.2 and 2.0), so I think this is a good time to synchronously > > release 1.2.3 and 2.0.3. Unless we hear from committers who are still > > working on some stable issues (or some other objections), I'll start > > a vote thread shortly. > > > > Thanks > > Andrus > > > > > > >
