Hans, I need more information. Could you provide a complete stack trace please? Also, you mentioned the new field types - did you change your fieldtype*.xml to use them? If so, I need to see the contents of that file.
-Adrian --- On Mon, 7/5/10, Adrian Crum <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Adrian Crum <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Discussion: New Field Types: found an error? > To: [email protected] > Date: Monday, July 5, 2010, 7:31 AM > Thanks Hans. I will look into it. > > -Adrian > > --- On Mon, 7/5/10, Hans Bakker <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > From: Hans Bakker <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: Discussion: New Field Types: found an > error? > > To: [email protected] > > Date: Monday, July 5, 2010, 3:31 AM > > It is happening with postgres 8.3 > > > > On Mon, 2010-07-05 at 17:27 +0700, Hans Bakker wrote: > > > Hi Adrian, > > > > > > Could it be of the new field types? one of my > > customers got the > > > following error when completing an order: > > > > > > ERROR: Could not complete the Create > > ShipmentPackageRouteSeg > > > > > > [file:/E:/workspace/ofbiz959845/applications/product/script/org/ofbiz/shipment/shipment/ShipmentServices.xml#createShipmentPackageRouteSeg] > > process [problem creating the newEntity value: Error > while > > inserting: > > > [GenericEntity:ShipmentPackageRouteSeg][createdStamp,2010-07-05 > > > 17:26:17.623(java.sql.Timestamp)][lastUpdatedStamp,2010-07-05 > > > 17:26:17.623(java.sql.Timestamp)][lastUpdatedTxStamp,2010-07-05 > > > 17:26:17.216(java.sql.Timestamp)][shipmentId,538260(java.lang.String)][shipmentPackageSeqId,00001(java.lang.String)][shipmentRouteSegmentId,00001(java.lang.String)] > > (SQL Exception while executing the following:INSERT > INTO > > public.SHIPMENT_PACKAGE_ROUTE_SEG (SHIPMENT_ID, > > SHIPMENT_PACKAGE_SEQ_ID, SHIPMENT_ROUTE_SEGMENT_ID, > > TRACKING_CODE, BOX_NUMBER, LABEL_IMAGE, > > LABEL_INTL_SIGN_IMAGE, LABEL_HTML, LABEL_PRINTED, > > INTERNATIONAL_INVOICE, PACKAGE_TRANSPORT_COST, > > PACKAGE_SERVICE_COST, PACKAGE_OTHER_COST, COD_AMOUNT, > > INSURED_AMOUNT, CURRENCY_UOM_ID, LAST_UPDATED_STAMP, > > LAST_UPDATED_TX_STAMP, CREATED_STAMP, > CREATED_TX_STAMP) > > VALUES (?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, > ?, ?, > > ?, ?, ?) (ERROR: column "label_image" is of type bytea > but > > expression is of type oid))] > > > [5:00:12 PM] yasin.lyyas(Virt.village): OFBiz > revision > > number: R959845 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 2010-06-27 at 07:57 -0700, Adrian Crum > wrote: > > > > Of course. If the blob field type is used > for a > > byte array or serialized object, it still works but > it > > generates a warning that suggests the correct field > type. > > > > > > > > -Adrian > > > > > > > > --- On Sat, 6/26/10, Jacques Le Roux <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > From: Jacques Le Roux <[email protected]> > > > > > Subject: Re: Discussion: New Field > Types > > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > > Date: Saturday, June 26, 2010, 12:19 > PM > > > > > Looks like a good idea to me. I > > > > > suppose you would keep backward > > compatibility? > > > > > > > > > > Jacques > > > > > > > > > > From: "Adrian Crum" <[email protected]> > > > > > > The blob field type is being used > as a > > catch-all for > > > > > multiple binary types. Right now > getting an > > object from a > > > > > blob field type > > > > > > could return a byte array, a > > deserialized Java object, > > > > > or a > javax.sql.rowset.serial.SerialBlob > > object. There is no > > > > > way to know for > > > > > > sure what will be returned - the > entity > > engine code > > > > > tries various methods until one works. > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it would be better to > specify > > exactly what you > > > > > intend to store in a BLOB SQL type: a > byte > > array, a > > > > > serialized Java object, > > > > > > or some unknown binary type. So, > I > > propose that we add > > > > > two new field types: byte-array and > object. > > Using Derby as > > > > > an example, this > > > > > > is what it would look like in > > fieldtypederby.xml: > > > > > > > > > > > > <field-type-def type="blob" > > sql-type="BLOB" > > > > > > > java-type="java.sql.Blob"></field-type-def> > > > > > > <field-type-def > type="byte-array" > > sql-type="BLOB" > > > > > > > java-type="byte[]"></field-type-def> > > > > > > <field-type-def type="object" > > sql-type="BLOB" > > > > > > > > java-type="java.lang.Object"></field-type-def> > > > > > > > > > > > > Getting an object from each field > type > > would return > > > > > the respective Java object type. > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > > > > > > > -Adrian > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Ofbiz on twitter: http://twitter.com/apache_ofbiz > > Myself on twitter: http://twitter.com/hansbak > > Antwebsystems.com: Quality services for competitive > rates. > > > > > > > >
