Yeah, that's what I eluded to on my first post. Thanks for letting me know I am not completely crazy yet ;-)
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 1:28 PM, Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think there is still something funny going on, looks to be related to the > time stamps that were going on there. > > > > On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 9:20 PM, James Kovacs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > >> I modified your patch to use transactions and SysCache worked for me as >> expected. I even debugged through and looked at the contents of the Foos >> table to verify that the IDbCommand did in fact delete the row. I've since >> reverted the code, but can re-create it tonight when I get home. >> James >> -- >> James Kovacs, B.Sc., M.Sc., MCSD, MCT >> Microsoft MVP - C# Architecture >> http://www.jameskovacs.com >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> 403-397-3177 (mobile) >> >> >> On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 12:16 PM, Craig Neuwirt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: >> >>> So, was their actually a determination made whether or not SysCache is >>> working as expected or there is actually a problem. If it is the former, >>> can someone please show me how to make it work (you can make updates the >>> patch I submitted) >>> >>> thanks, >>> craig >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 7:02 PM, Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>>> You have to commit the transaction. >>>> NH requires transactions for reads as well. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 2:53 AM, Craig Neuwirt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hey James, >>>>> >>>>> You are absolutely correct. Once I added the transaction, my unit >>>>> test passed. However, the actual scenario I am trying to get working is >>>>> assuming data is in the db already and I perform an initial query. I want >>>>> that result to go into the second level cache so it is retrieved from the >>>>> cache when the same query is executed. How do I make that happen? I >>>>> tried >>>>> putting transaction around the query, but that didn't work and I don't >>>>> think >>>>> that should be necessary for reads. >>>>> >>>>> thanks, >>>>> craig >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 5:14 PM, James Kovacs <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I am looking at it right now. Initial investigations... The problem >>>>>> seems to stem from lack of transaction handling in the test case. If >>>>>> rather >>>>>> than flushing the session, you commit a transaction, the SysCache returns >>>>>> data appropriately. I'll post more as I find out more. (Just posting to >>>>>> save >>>>>> Ayende some time.) >>>>>> >>>>>> James >>>>>> -- >>>>>> James Kovacs, B.Sc., M.Sc., MCSD, MCT >>>>>> Microsoft MVP - C# Architecture >>>>>> http://www.jameskovacs.com >>>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>>> 403-397-3177 (mobile) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 4:07 PM, Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Guys, >>>>>>> I am going to look at the issue now, will post my results soon >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 10:44 PM, Gildas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Fabio, I know that I'm still noob in NHibernate and that I may ask >>>>>>>> stupid questions. I'm sorry if you are bored with this, but well, >>>>>>>> please understand that I'm just trying to resolve a problem I did >>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>> have before upgrading to last NHibernate trunk. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Going through Rhino code, I can see that my session is created at >>>>>>>> each >>>>>>>> request, so that's not the problem. >>>>>>>> Anyway, I still don't have any second level cache. Items are updated >>>>>>>> but never retrieved from it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Can someone check the test case from craig, which is failing and >>>>>>>> don't >>>>>>>> use any fancy session management ? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sep 7, 8:35 pm, "Fabio Maulo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>>>>> > 2008/9/7 Gildas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > > So I'm going to ask if this is the right way to handle sessions >>>>>>>> ? From >>>>>>>> > > what I remember of NHibernate, NH Sessions must not be stored in >>>>>>>> > > HttpContext.Session. I may not understand the reasons why this >>>>>>>> done >>>>>>>> > > like this in UnitOfWorkApplication, maybe for long transactions >>>>>>>> > > management ? >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > Rhino UoW use httpSession only for long conversation... >>>>>>>> > The NhSession CAN be stored in the httpSession simply because is >>>>>>>> the "most >>>>>>>> > simple" way to manage long-conversations. >>>>>>>> > -- >>>>>>>> > Fabio Maulo >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "nhusers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nhusers?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
