Three more things:
1) I have ImplicitLocking turned off
2) My pseudocode is wrong: Actually, the parent object is created in a
different transaction. So it's like this:
tx = odmg.newTransaction();
profile = new FieldOfficeProfileImpl();
database.makePersistent(profile);
tx.commit();
tx = odmg.newTransaction();
// Following line does not change behavior:
// profile = getProfileById(profileId);
county = getCountyByFips(fips);
profile.addCounty(county);
tx.commit();
3) According to the log file, county is indeed getting registered as "new
dirty":
DEBUG [main] (TransactionImpl.java:316) - Do WRITE lock on object:
gov.doi.tat.dataobjects.FieldOfficeProfileImpl{64542}
DEBUG [main] (LockManagerInMemoryImpl.java:292) -
LM.writeLock(tx-10.100.182.239:83e1e:10389c5d682:-7fff,
gov.doi.tat.dataobjects.FieldOfficeProfileImpl{64542})
DEBUG [main] (ObjectEnvelopeTable.java:424) - register:
[EMAIL PROTECTED],ModificationState=org.apache.ojb.odmg.states.StateOldClean]
DEBUG [main] (TransactionImpl.java:362) - call beginTransaction() on PB
instance
DEBUG [main] (ConnectionManagerImpl.java:170) - localBegin was called for
con [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DEBUG [main] (ConnectionManagerImpl.java:173) - Try to change autoCommit
state to 'false'
DEBUG [main] (ObjectEnvelopeTable.java:143) - PB is in internal tx: true
broker was: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DEBUG [main] (ObjectEnvelopeTable.java:424) - register:
[EMAIL PROTECTED],ModificationState=org.apache.ojb.odmg.states.StateNewDirty]
thanks,
-steve
Steve Clark
ECOS Development Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(970)226-9291
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
04/28/2005 09:54 AM
Please respond to
"OJB Users List" <[email protected]>
To
"OJB Users List" <[email protected]>
cc
Subject
Re: Problems with collections in ODMG - just upgraded to OJB 1.0.3
Martin & Armin,
Thanks for the responses. Some more info:
- The collection in question is a non-decomposed m:n.
- There actually are two collections which exhibit this problem; in one
case the child pk is an int, and in the other it's a String. The keys are
not null or 0 (the child being added was retrieved by pk, and in the log
file the error message for the INSERT statement shows the expected pk
value - the way that I found the problem is that the INSERT fails because
it violates the pk constraint).
- In one case, the child is proxyable; in the other case, it is not.
- I have tried using the default auto-xxx settings and also explicitly
setting auto-delete and auto-update="none".
- The child has accept-locks="false".
Here's a repository.xml snippet:
<!-- - - - - - - FieldOfficeProfile - - - - - - -->
<class-descriptor
class="gov.doi.tat.dataobjects.FieldOfficeProfileImpl"
table="FIELD_OFFICE_PROFILE"
factory-method="createFieldOfficeProfile"
factory-class="gov.doi.tat.dataobjects.SupportDOFactory" >
<field-descriptor
name="officeId"
nullable="false"
column="OFFICE_ID"
jdbc-type="INTEGER"
primarykey="true"
/>
<!-- Collections -->
<collection-descriptor
name="counties"
element-class-ref="gov.doi.tat.dataobjects.County"
indirection-table="FIELD_OFFICE_COUNTY"
auto-update="none"
auto-delete="none" >
<fk-pointing-to-this-class column="OFFICE_ID" />
<fk-pointing-to-element-class column="FIPS" />
</collection-descriptor>
<collection-descriptor
name="listedSpecies"
element-class-ref="gov.doi.tess.dataobjects.TessPopulation"
indirection-table="FIELD_OFFICE_SPECIES"
auto-update="none"
auto-delete="none" >
<fk-pointing-to-this-class column="OFFICE_ID" />
<fk-pointing-to-element-class column="ENTITY_ID" />
</collection-descriptor>
</class-descriptor>
<!-- - - - - - - County - - - - - - -->
<class-descriptor
class="gov.doi.tat.dataobjects.County"
schema="SUPPORT"
table="COUNTY_LUT"
accept-locks="false" >
<field-descriptor
name="fullFips"
column="FIPS"
jdbc-type="VARCHAR"
primarykey="true"
/>
...
</class-descriptor>
<!-- - - - - - - TessPopulation - - - - - - -->
<class-descriptor
class="gov.doi.tess.dataobjects.TessPopulation" >
<extent-class
class-ref="gov.doi.tess.dataobjects.TessPopulationImpl" />
</class-descriptor>
<class-descriptor
class="gov.doi.tess.dataobjects.TessPopulationImpl"
factory-class="gov.doi.tess.dataobjects.TessDOFactory"
factory-method="createTessPopulation"
schema="TESS"
table="SPECIES_DETAILS"
accept-locks="false" >
<field-descriptor
name="entityId"
column="ENTITY_ID"
jdbc-type="INTEGER"
primarykey="true"
/>
...
</class-descriptor>
Code snippet::
county = getCountyByFips(fips);
tx = odmg.newTransaction();
profile = new FieldOfficeProfileImpl();
database.makePersistent(profile);
profile.addCounty(county);
tx.commit();
thanks,
-steve
Steve Clark
ECOS Development Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(970)226-9291
Armin Waibel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
04/28/2005 04:12 AM
Please respond to
"OJB Users List" <[email protected]>
To
OJB Users List <[email protected]>
cc
Subject
Re: Problems with collections in ODMG - just upgraded to OJB 1.0.3
Hi Steve,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Now I remember why I'm always hesitant to upgrade OJB - it seems like
> there is some fundamental change to how things work.
we made a complete refactoring of the odmg implementation in 1.0.2/3,
because of the many known issues in OJB <=1.0.1 (see release-notes
1.0.2/3).
I did my best not to break backward compatibility. The problem is that
we don't get much feedback from the ODMG users, so I only can test
against the OJB test-suite which never could reflect behavior of a real
OJB application.
Major changes are noted in release-notes. But you are right, internally
the odmg implementation changed (better dirty-detection, avoid of
materialization proxy objects, ...).
> I hope things are
> getting more stable, 'cause in the in-between times when I don't have to
> rework, it's a great tool.
>
My intention was to make it more stable ;-)
> Here's where I'm stuck now. I just upgraded from 1.0.0 to 1.0.3; I use
> the ODMG API. I have the following pseudo-code:
>
> child = retrieveSomeObjectFromDatabase();
> tx = odmg.newTransaction();
> parent = new Parent();
> database.makePersistent(parent);
> parent.addChild(child);
> tx.commit();
>
> parent.addChild() does what it sounds like: calls children.add(child).
> When I commit the transaction, OJB tries to insert a new Child. Can
> anybody tell me why this might happen? This is, obviously, a
showstopper
> for me. It happens with default caching (i.e. none) and with the
> two-level cache.
>
I wrote a test-case to reproduce your problem, but I can't. I stumble
across another bug (OJB-33, will be fixed soon
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OJB-33).
Could you post some more details of the used objects. Does the Child
object use primitive number fields (e.g. int) as PK? Could the PK of the
Child object be '0'?
Current behavior of ODMG seems that the n-side object will be completely
ignored: Book -1:n-> Review
Review review = new Review(name);
TransactionExt tx = (TransactionExt) odmg.newTransaction();
tx.begin();
database.makePersistent(review);
tx.commit();
Date date = new Date();
byte[] cover = new byte[]{2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9};
Book book = new Book(name, date, cover);
tx = (TransactionExt) odmg.newTransaction();
tx.begin();
database.makePersistent(book);
book.addReview(review);
tx.commit();
> Other random ODMG questions:
> At some point, the instructions for adding a new persistent object using
> ODMG changed; I'm not sure when. It used to say that tx.lock(object,
> tx.WRITE) would add the object to the db if it wasn't already there, and
> this is how I've always done it. Now I see that the tutorial says to
use
> db.makePersistent(object), and the code for the two is different. Will
> tx.lock() still work, or do I have to rewrite all of my DAOs?
Yep, this changed. Persist new objects with tx.lock should work too. I
didn't change the old tests in test-suite and didn't notice side-effects
(think they use tx.lock too some time to insert new objects).
> Is it true that the (unofficial) feature which actually did allow ODMG
to
> observe auto-delete settings is gone?
I didn't take care of this "unkown feature" when refactoring ODMG (the
official setting was auto-update/delete 'false' in <=1.0.1). But I think
your setting could cause side-effects, because the objects deleted with
auto-delete 'true' will not be controlled by ODMG, thus they will not be
locked before delete.
> I've always (in OJB ODMG) used
> cascading delete bounded by appropriate auto-delete settings; now it
looks
> as if I have no choice but to delete each individual object by hand.
True?
When using default behavior - yep.
> Setting the cascading delete settings by relationship type (1:1, 1:n,
> m:n) seems extremely weird, and certainly won't be very useful, since
the
> correct delete semantics are always a function of the particular
> relationship, not of the form of the relationship.
Completely agree, I think the introduced settings in OJB.properties are
nonsense in most cases. Currently the only methods help to improve
deletion are TransactionExt#setCascadingDelete...
http://db.apache.org/ojb/api/org/apache/ojb/odmg/TransactionExt.html#setCascadingDelete(java.lang.Class,%20boolean)
If your are interested in an official support of auto-delete setting in
odmg-api please make a feature request on jira. I don't know if this
will be possible in near future, but will do my best.
regards,
Armin
>
> thanks,
> -steve
>
> Steve Clark
> ECOS Development Group
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> (970)226-9291
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
