On 6/19/06, Martin Koci <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As I'm looking to current code, this exception is thrown with
SessionItemStateManager, because associated instances of
TransientItemStateManager and TransientItemStateManager haven'n this
item.
I don't understand what createItemInstance method in item manager does -
first called method is for getting state of newly creating item:
try {
state = itemStateProvider.getItemState(id);
} catch (NoSuchItemStateException nsise) {
throw new ItemNotFoundException(id.toString());
}
But how can item has such state when we are in method for creating this
item, so the item doesn't exist yet?
ItemManager#createItemInstance creates, as tis name implies, an ItemImpl
instance. ItemImpl, NodeImpl and PropertyImpl wrap the state of an item and
expose the javax.jcr.Item et al interfaces. so if there's no state, it
can't create
an ItemImpl wrapper. that's all fine.
regarding your problem: please provide a simple test case which reproduces your
issue.
cheers
stefan
Thanks,
Martin
Martin Koci píše v Po 19. 06. 2006 v 12:00 +0200:
> Hello,
>
> I'm adding recursively nodes, but this leads to exception occasionally:
> javax.jcr.ItemNotFoundException: d1a479a0-b822-43a3-8181-9380635fb02a
> at
>
org.apache.jackrabbit.core.ItemManager.createItemInstance(ItemManager.java:464)
> at org.apache.jackrabbit.core.ItemManager.getItem(ItemManager.java:320)
> at
> org.apache.jackrabbit.core.NodeImpl.internalAddChildNode(NodeImpl.java:794)
> at
> org.apache.jackrabbit.core.NodeImpl.internalAddNode(NodeImpl.java:738)
> at
> org.apache.jackrabbit.core.NodeImpl.internalAddNode(NodeImpl.java:685)
> at org.apache.jackrabbit.core.NodeImpl.addNode(NodeImpl.java:1772)
> at
>
cz.aura.cms.preferences.impl.PreferencesServiceImpl.addRecursively(PreferencesServiceImpl.java:195)
>
>
> My code is:
> for (int i = 0; i < nodeNames.length; i++) {
> relPath = nodeNames[i];
> if (workNode.hasNode(relPath) == false) {
> Node node = workNode.addNode(relPath);
> workNode = node;
> } else {
> workNode = workNode.getNode(relPath);
> }
> }
>
> Unfortunately this behaviour is not reproducible with test and come on
> accidentally.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Martin
>
>
>
