Ashish Rangole wrote:
Armin,
batch mode = false in my configuration.
Really strange, never perceived such a behavior in OJB. Is it
reproduceable, did you lost always the same objects?
Could you send me a test or some pseudo code describing the problem?
regards,
Armin
Thanks
Ashish
Armin Waibel wrote:
Ashish Rangole wrote:
Is the field type the same for all modified classes? Maybe OJB has
problems to detect the changed field. You could try to change the
object state by yourself using OJB's odmg extensions via
TransactionExt#markDirty.
http://db.apache.org/ojb/docu/guides/odmg-guide.html#OJB+Extensions+of+ODMG
(this link is for >=1.0.3 but #markDirty exists in 1.0.1 too - AFAIK)
Yes the field is same for all modified objects which are of same class.
From your suggestion above I get the impression that this is a known
bug in version 1.0.1. Please confirm. I wonder why does it behave
correctly for some of the objects in the transaction, then does not for
some other. For eg if there are 200 objects retrieved and write locked
in the transaction, it will correctly persist the changes in ,say,
first 120, then miss the next 10 objects, then correctly persist the
remaining.
This is not a known bug, but I can't rule out that your problem is a
bug in 1.0.1.
Is the batch mode enabled (batch-mode="true" in
jdbc-connection-descriptor)? If yes, did you run the test with
disabled batch-mode? Do you get the same result with 1.0.4rc from CVS
(OJB_1_0_RELEASE branch)?
regards,
Armin
Thanks a lot for your time and help.
Ashish
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
