This is very strange for me - need help
I got this error:
[2008-5-30 18:31:43 CEST] WorkerThread0
com.webobjects.eoaccess.EOGeneralAdaptorException: EvaluateExpression
failed: com.webobjects.jdbcadaptor.OpenBasePlugIn$OpenBaseExpression:
INSERT INTO INDBLocalizedString(it, de, id, en) VALUES (?, ?, ?, ?)
withBindings: 1:write ITghgf(it), 2:write DE(de), 3:128(id),
4:write EN(en):
Next exception:SQL State:42000 -- error code: 0 -- msg: ERROR -
Value for column 'id' is not unique.
SQL: INSERT INTO INDBLocalizedString(it, de, id, en) VALUES ('write
ITghgf', 'write DE', 128, 'write EN')
I checked and rechecked, the value for column ID is UNIQUE!!!
also typing the SQL directly into database works!
Any suggestion?!!
Thanks
Amedeo ___
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: This is very strange for me - need help
It's a SQL error so the complaint is from your DB.
I would try dropping the contents of your EO PK table and see if it
goes away.
Simon
On 30 May 2008, at 17:38, Amedeo Mantica wrote:
I got this error:
[2008-5-30 18:31:43 CEST] WorkerThread0
com.webobjects.eoaccess.EOGeneralAdaptorException:
EvaluateExpression failed: com.webobjects.jdbcadaptor.OpenBasePlugIn
$OpenBaseExpression: INSERT INTO INDBLocalizedString(it, de, id,
en) VALUES (?, ?, ?, ?) withBindings: 1:write ITghgf(it),
2:write DE(de), 3:128(id), 4:write EN(en):
Next exception:SQL State:42000 -- error code: 0 -- msg: ERROR -
Value for column 'id' is not unique.
SQL: INSERT INTO INDBLocalizedString(it, de, id, en) VALUES ('write
ITghgf', 'write DE', 128, 'write EN')
I checked and rechecked, the value for column ID is UNIQUE!!!
also typing the SQL directly into database works!
Any suggestion?!!
Thanks
Amedeo
___
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/simon_mclean%40mac.com
This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: This is very strange for me - need help
My guess is that you are doing the insert twice in the same
transaction. The transaction is then rolled back and consequently you
can manually insert the same values with no violation of the
uniqueness constraint. Turn on EOAdaptorDebugEnabled and
watch the SQL that's generated to get a better idea of what's going on.
Alan
On May 30, 2008, at 10:38 AM, Amedeo Mantica wrote:
I got this error:
[2008-5-30 18:31:43 CEST] WorkerThread0
com.webobjects.eoaccess.EOGeneralAdaptorException:
EvaluateExpression failed:
com.webobjects.jdbcadaptor.OpenBasePlugIn$OpenBaseExpression:
INSERT INTO INDBLocalizedString(it, de, id, en) VALUES
(?, ?, ?, ?) withBindings: 1:write ITghgf(it), 2:write DE(de),
3:128(id), 4:write EN(en):
Next exception:SQL State:42000 -- error code: 0 -- msg: ERROR -
Value for column 'id' is not unique.
SQL: INSERT INTO INDBLocalizedString(it, de, id, en) VALUES ('write
ITghgf', 'write DE', 128, 'write EN')
I checked and rechecked, the value for column ID is UNIQUE!!!
also typing the SQL directly into database works!
Any suggestion?!!
Thanks
Amedeo
___
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/award%
40apple.com
This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Compiler Warnings for NSSelector
This maybe an easy question, but I could not think of the answer right now. The constants for EOQualifier (i.e. QualifierOperatorEquals) are of type NSSelector. However, NSSelector is defined as NSSelectorT so the compiler wants me to give it a type when I reference it. So that I can get rid of the compiler warnings, what is the type for the NSSelectors in EOQualifier? Thanks, Frank ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fetching abstract entity
I have 2 models, one which contain a set of abstract eoentity, another one which contain a set of concret eoentity (subclasses of the abstract set). It was working just right, but suddently after reinstalling one of the framework, it just stopped working. I can't make it work again. Whenever I fetch an abstract entity (assuming, I will get objects of the concrete entity), it now return me an object of the abstract entity type. Details ... A - abstract eoentity name CA - java classe for eoentity 'A' B - concrete eoentity name, sub-entity of 'A' CB - java classe of 'B' NSMutableDictionary dict = new NSMutableDictionary(); dict.takeValueForKey(k1, key1); dict.takeValueForKey(k2, key2); expectCBInstance = (CB) EOUtilities.objectMatchingValues (ec, A, dict); But EOUtilities return me CA instances. Any idea why EOF fetch abstract entity and not the concrete one ? Thanks, - jfv ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Fetching abstract entity
On May 30, 2008, at 11:17 AM, Jean-François Veillette wrote: I have 2 models, one which contain a set of abstract eoentity, another one which contain a set of concret eoentity (subclasses of the abstract set). It was working just right, but suddently after reinstalling one of the framework, it just stopped working. I can't make it work again. Whenever I fetch an abstract entity (assuming, I will get objects of the concrete entity), it now return me an object of the abstract entity type. Details ... A - abstract eoentity name CA - java classe for eoentity 'A' B - concrete eoentity name, sub-entity of 'A' CB - java classe of 'B' NSMutableDictionary dict = new NSMutableDictionary(); dict.takeValueForKey(k1, key1); dict.takeValueForKey(k2, key2); expectCBInstance = (CB) EOUtilities.objectMatchingValues(ec, A, dict); But EOUtilities return me CA instances. Any idea why EOF fetch abstract entity and not the concrete one ? Which kind of inheritance (single table, vertical, horizontal)? Did the restricting qualifiers get lost or changed in the model or database? Chuck -- Practical WebObjects - for developers who want to increase their overall knowledge of WebObjects or who are trying to solve specific problems. http://www.global-village.net/products/practical_webobjects ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Fetching abstract entity
On May 30, 2008, at 12:35 PM, Jean-François Veillette wrote: More details ... single table inheritance, no restricting qualifiers, there is only one concrete entity for one abstract entity. I have never used it like that. I expected that you would still need the restricting qualifier. Chuck Le 08-05-30 à 15:14, Chuck Hill a écrit : On May 30, 2008, at 11:17 AM, Jean-François Veillette wrote: I have 2 models, one which contain a set of abstract eoentity, another one which contain a set of concret eoentity (subclasses of the abstract set). It was working just right, but suddently after reinstalling one of the framework, it just stopped working. I can't make it work again. Whenever I fetch an abstract entity (assuming, I will get objects of the concrete entity), it now return me an object of the abstract entity type. Details ... A - abstract eoentity name CA - java classe for eoentity 'A' B - concrete eoentity name, sub-entity of 'A' CB - java classe of 'B' NSMutableDictionary dict = new NSMutableDictionary(); dict.takeValueForKey(k1, key1); dict.takeValueForKey(k2, key2); expectCBInstance = (CB) EOUtilities.objectMatchingValues(ec, A, dict); But EOUtilities return me CA instances. Any idea why EOF fetch abstract entity and not the concrete one ? Which kind of inheritance (single table, vertical, horizontal)? Did the restricting qualifiers get lost or changed in the model or database? Chuck -- Practical WebObjects - for developers who want to increase their overall knowledge of WebObjects or who are trying to solve specific problems. http://www.global-village.net/products/practical_webobjects ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Fetching abstract entity
The other possibility is that the model with the subclasses is not getting loaded. Maybe not under Resources/ in the Eclipse built framework? On May 30, 2008, at 12:44 PM, Jean-François Veillette wrote: I have never needed the qualifier before. This is a project freshly switched from xcode to eclipse, so things may not be stable yet in eclipse for this project. Anyway, I'll try to add the qualifier on 'B' and hope it works ... and see what kind of sql it generate. - jfv Le 08-05-30 à 15:37, Chuck Hill a écrit : On May 30, 2008, at 12:35 PM, Jean-François Veillette wrote: More details ... single table inheritance, no restricting qualifiers, there is only one concrete entity for one abstract entity. I have never used it like that. I expected that you would still need the restricting qualifier. Chuck Le 08-05-30 à 15:14, Chuck Hill a écrit : On May 30, 2008, at 11:17 AM, Jean-François Veillette wrote: I have 2 models, one which contain a set of abstract eoentity, another one which contain a set of concret eoentity (subclasses of the abstract set). It was working just right, but suddently after reinstalling one of the framework, it just stopped working. I can't make it work again. Whenever I fetch an abstract entity (assuming, I will get objects of the concrete entity), it now return me an object of the abstract entity type. Details ... A - abstract eoentity name CA - java classe for eoentity 'A' B - concrete eoentity name, sub-entity of 'A' CB - java classe of 'B' NSMutableDictionary dict = new NSMutableDictionary(); dict.takeValueForKey(k1, key1); dict.takeValueForKey(k2, key2); expectCBInstance = (CB) EOUtilities.objectMatchingValues(ec, A, dict); But EOUtilities return me CA instances. Any idea why EOF fetch abstract entity and not the concrete one ? Which kind of inheritance (single table, vertical, horizontal)? Did the restricting qualifiers get lost or changed in the model or database? Chuck -- Practical WebObjects - for developers who want to increase their overall knowledge of WebObjects or who are trying to solve specific problems. http://www.global-village.net/products/practical_webobjects ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fwd: Relationship across model boundaries failing
Flattening relationshops (consequently - many-to-many relations) does not work across database (consequently - EOModel) boundaries Unfortunately. It is mentioned in Using EOModeler manual. So you have to traverse relationships programmatically I assume. Gennady 2008/5/29 Juergen Lorenz Simon [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi, I'm trying to model a relationship across two EOF Models: Model FirstModel (database name firstmodel) Entity A Model B (database name secondmodel) Entity B Now I have an n:m relationship between the two entities. So in Model FirstModel, I create join tables AB, which has relationships pointing to B. A - AB - B When I try to add or delete objects, the resulting SQL has the wrong table name. Instead of looking to firstmodel.AB, it looks for secondmodel.AB instead! I'm using Project Wonder, WebObjects 5.3 and MySQL. Anyone got an idea what that might be? Cheers, J.L.Simon ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/genkush%40rujel.net This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Relationship across model boundaries failing
IMHO you should never flatten a many-to-many (especially across models). Alan On May 30, 2008, at 1:47 PM, Gennady Kushnir wrote: Flattening relationshops (consequently - many-to-many relations) does not work across database (consequently - EOModel) boundaries Unfortunately. It is mentioned in Using EOModeler manual. So you have to traverse relationships programmatically I assume. Gennady 2008/5/29 Juergen Lorenz Simon [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi, I'm trying to model a relationship across two EOF Models: Model FirstModel (database name firstmodel) Entity A Model B (database name secondmodel) Entity B Now I have an n:m relationship between the two entities. So in Model FirstModel, I create join tables AB, which has relationships pointing to B. A - AB - B When I try to add or delete objects, the resulting SQL has the wrong table name. Instead of looking to firstmodel.AB, it looks for secondmodel.AB instead! I'm using Project Wonder, WebObjects 5.3 and MySQL. Anyone got an idea what that might be? Cheers, J.L.Simon ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/genkush% 40rujel.net This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/award% 40apple.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Relationship across model boundaries failing
IMHO you should never flatten a many-to-many (especially across models). So this is interesting ... I held this same belief for years until about 6 months ago when Chuck convinced me that I was missing out :) I had some silly misunderstanding of EOF caching with respect to flattened relationships that Chuck proved was wrong. I've since been pretty happy with them (though admittedly I've never crossed model boundaries). I'm curious what you're reasoning for not flattening is? Definitely it will fail across databases boundaries (which totally makes sense), but it's not immediately obvious that (or rather why) it would fail across model boundaries onto the same database (assuming you have the EXACT same connection dictionary between the two). ms ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Relationship across model boundaries failing
I'm actually somewhat opposed to flattening in any situation but when it comes to M-to-M my justification is more performance related than anything else. I actually omit joins from the model in certain situations to avoid unwanted fetches and flattening is more of a recipe for disaster than a simple join is.If you're working with a small data set then none of this is a big deal but once you get up into 10's of millions of rows in any given table then you have to be extremely careful with the modeling in order to avoid unexpected killer fetches. You know what I work on and I think our challenges are somewhat atypical. I do believe though that they have some value as general principals because however small your data set is to begin with, it likely will grow over time. Alan On May 30, 2008, at 2:19 PM, Mike Schrag wrote: IMHO you should never flatten a many-to-many (especially across models). So this is interesting ... I held this same belief for years until about 6 months ago when Chuck convinced me that I was missing out :) I had some silly misunderstanding of EOF caching with respect to flattened relationships that Chuck proved was wrong. I've since been pretty happy with them (though admittedly I've never crossed model boundaries). I'm curious what you're reasoning for not flattening is? Definitely it will fail across databases boundaries (which totally makes sense), but it's not immediately obvious that (or rather why) it would fail across model boundaries onto the same database (assuming you have the EXACT same connection dictionary between the two). ms ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/award% 40apple.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Relationship across model boundaries failing
On May 30, 2008, at 1:19 PM, Mike Schrag wrote: IMHO you should never flatten a many-to-many (especially across models). So this is interesting ... I held this same belief for years until about 6 months ago when Chuck convinced me that I was missing out :) I had some silly misunderstanding of EOF caching with respect to flattened relationships that Chuck proved was wrong. I've since been pretty happy with them (though admittedly I've never crossed model boundaries). I'm curious what you're reasoning for not flattening is? Definitely it will fail across databases boundaries (which totally makes sense), but it's not immediately obvious that (or rather why) it would fail across model boundaries onto the same database (assuming you have the EXACT same connection dictionary between the two). I am curious too. I'd rather shoot myself than not flatten to many relationships. I'd almost rather use J2EE. Like Mike says, across databases is a problem. Across models is not if you are sensible enough to ensure consistent connection dictionaries when they load (which I think is safe to assume here). Chuck -- Practical WebObjects - for developers who want to increase their overall knowledge of WebObjects or who are trying to solve specific problems. http://www.global-village.net/products/practical_webobjects ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Relationship across model boundaries failing
On May 30, 2008, at 2:32 PM, Chuck Hill wrote: On May 30, 2008, at 1:19 PM, Mike Schrag wrote: IMHO you should never flatten a many-to-many (especially across models). So this is interesting ... I held this same belief for years until about 6 months ago when Chuck convinced me that I was missing out :) I had some silly misunderstanding of EOF caching with respect to flattened relationships that Chuck proved was wrong. I've since been pretty happy with them (though admittedly I've never crossed model boundaries). I'm curious what you're reasoning for not flattening is? Definitely it will fail across databases boundaries (which totally makes sense), but it's not immediately obvious that (or rather why) it would fail across model boundaries onto the same database (assuming you have the EXACT same connection dictionary between the two). I am curious too. I'd rather shoot myself than not flatten to many relationships. I'd almost rather use J2EE. Like Mike says, across databases is a problem. Across models is not if you are sensible enough to ensure consistent connection dictionaries when they load (which I think is safe to assume here). Like I was saying to Mike, it's simply a guard against performance issues. It's like omitting inverse relationships when you know that it would be suicide if anyone tried to traverse (or inadvertently tripped) them. e.g. transaction - user_agent is a fine relationship to model but would you even dream of modeling the inverse relationship? Maybe you would if you only made one sale a week. Alan Chuck -- Practical WebObjects - for developers who want to increase their overall knowledge of WebObjects or who are trying to solve specific problems. http://www.global-village.net/products/practical_webobjects ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/award% 40apple.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Relationship across model boundaries failing
Like I was saying to Mike, it's simply a guard against performance issues. It's like omitting inverse relationships when you know that it would be suicide if anyone tried to traverse (or inadvertently tripped) them. e.g. transaction - user_agent is a fine relationship to model but would you even dream of modeling the inverse relationship? Maybe you would if you only made one sale a week. I'm with you here, but the same would be true of the non-flattened, right? If you don't want to fault the relationship, don't model it, but that seems to me more of a pragmatic decision about the existence (or not) of the relationship rather than specially related to many-to- many flattening. As far as I know, the faulting rules should be the same. ms ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Relationship across model boundaries failing
On 30.05.2008, at 14:31, Alan Ward wrote: I actually omit joins from the model in certain situations to avoid unwanted fetches and flattening is more of a recipe for disaster than a simple join is. But it actually doesn't matter how big your datasets are. The interesting question is how big the joins are. I have a database here with some ten million entries in it and the biggest to-many is a couple of hundred objects - this runs on a dual G4 with a small disk array and never gave me any problems. And I rather have the development speed of flattened relationships and working to-many relationships and deal with the consequences when I have to. Yes, I had to turn of some back-relationships over time and do not model some of the inverse relationships at all, because I know they will cause problems, but as an overall rule? No, definitely not. cug -- http://www.event-s.net ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Relationship across model boundaries failing
I'm sure Chuck will correct me if I'm wrong but my recollection is that a flattened to-many will always trip on an insert or update. Alan On May 30, 2008, at 2:48 PM, Guido Neitzer wrote: On 30.05.2008, at 14:31, Alan Ward wrote: I actually omit joins from the model in certain situations to avoid unwanted fetches and flattening is more of a recipe for disaster than a simple join is. But it actually doesn't matter how big your datasets are. The interesting question is how big the joins are. I have a database here with some ten million entries in it and the biggest to-many is a couple of hundred objects - this runs on a dual G4 with a small disk array and never gave me any problems. And I rather have the development speed of flattened relationships and working to-many relationships and deal with the consequences when I have to. Yes, I had to turn of some back-relationships over time and do not model some of the inverse relationships at all, because I know they will cause problems, but as an overall rule? No, definitely not. cug -- http://www.event-s.net ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Relationship across model boundaries failing
On 30.05.2008, at 14:59, Alan Ward wrote: I'm sure Chuck will correct me if I'm wrong but my recollection is that a flattened to-many will always trip on an insert or update. Hmm. What you mean by trip on? Guido -- http://www.event-s.net ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Relationship across model boundaries failing
I'm sure Chuck will correct me if I'm wrong but my recollection is that a flattened to-many will always trip on an insert or update. Hmm. What you mean by trip on? Pretty sure Alan is saying that updating or inserting an EO with a flattened to-many fires the fault of the to-many. This would be a really bad bug if it's true. Writing a test case now ... ms ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Relationship across model boundaries failing
I'm sure Chuck will correct me if I'm wrong but my recollection is that a flattened to-many will always trip on an insert or update. Hmm. What you mean by trip on? Pretty sure Alan is saying that updating or inserting an EO with a flattened to-many fires the fault of the to-many. This would be a really bad bug if it's true. Writing a test case now ... This appears to be OK for the test I'm doing in 5.3 with Wonder. Maybe this was a bug in an older version of WO/EOF or maybe Wonder fixes this and I just never knew? I have Person and Company and a many-to-many join between them. I added 100 of each and made each person related to each of the 100 companies. I restarted to get a fresh snapshot cache, and if i fetch a person, change the person's name and resave, I get the single query to fetch the EO and a single query to perform the update and no fetches against Company. ms ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Relationship across model boundaries failing
I'm sure Chuck will correct me if I'm wrong but my recollection is that a flattened to-many will always trip on an insert or update. Hmm. What you mean by trip on? Pretty sure Alan is saying that updating or inserting an EO with a flattened to-many fires the fault of the to-many. This would be a really bad bug if it's true. Writing a test case now ... This appears to be OK for the test I'm doing in 5.3 with Wonder. Maybe this was a bug in an older version of WO/EOF or maybe Wonder fixes this and I just never knew? I have Person and Company and a many-to-many join between them. I added 100 of each and made each person related to each of the 100 companies. I restarted to get a fresh snapshot cache, and if i fetch a person, change the person's name and resave, I get the single query to fetch the EO and a single query to perform the update and no fetches against Company. Chuck is suggesting to me in AIM that maybe Alan meant that if you add or update the flattened to many relationship, it will fire a fault, which is definitely true. But that would be the same if it was just a one-to-many, or a non-flattened relationship. I'm wondering if maybe Alan's referring to some behavior in 5.2 where maybe his concern is true but maybe has since been fixed? ms ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Relationship across model boundaries failing
On May 30, 2008, at 1:59 PM, Alan Ward wrote: I'm sure Chuck will correct me if I'm wrong but my recollection is that a flattened to-many will always trip on an insert or update. Any to many, flattened or not, will fire the array fault (but not fire the faults in the array) when an element is added to or removed from the relationship. I can't think of how flattening would affect this. You should see the exact same SQL. Now it _would_ be nice if EOF could just add / remove and mark the snapshot as partial or something to avoid this overhead. Chuck On May 30, 2008, at 2:48 PM, Guido Neitzer wrote: On 30.05.2008, at 14:31, Alan Ward wrote: I actually omit joins from the model in certain situations to avoid unwanted fetches and flattening is more of a recipe for disaster than a simple join is. But it actually doesn't matter how big your datasets are. The interesting question is how big the joins are. I have a database here with some ten million entries in it and the biggest to-many is a couple of hundred objects - this runs on a dual G4 with a small disk array and never gave me any problems. And I rather have the development speed of flattened relationships and working to-many relationships and deal with the consequences when I have to. Yes, I had to turn of some back-relationships over time and do not model some of the inverse relationships at all, because I know they will cause problems, but as an overall rule? No, definitely not. cug -- http://www.event-s.net ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/chill%40global-village.net This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Practical WebObjects - for developers who want to increase their overall knowledge of WebObjects or who are trying to solve specific problems. http://www.global-village.net/products/practical_webobjects ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Relationship across model boundaries failing
Now it _would_ be nice if EOF could just add / remove and mark the snapshot as partial or something to avoid this overhead. Once every 6 months I think that I should try to fix this in Wonder, but at this point I think Pierre would physically attack me at WWDC if I try to do this :) ms ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Relationship across model boundaries failing
On May 30, 2008, at 3:43 PM, Mike Schrag wrote: I'm sure Chuck will correct me if I'm wrong but my recollection is that a flattened to-many will always trip on an insert or update. Hmm. What you mean by trip on? Pretty sure Alan is saying that updating or inserting an EO with a flattened to-many fires the fault of the to-many. This would be a really bad bug if it's true. Writing a test case now ... This appears to be OK for the test I'm doing in 5.3 with Wonder. Maybe this was a bug in an older version of WO/EOF or maybe Wonder fixes this and I just never knew? I have Person and Company and a many-to-many join between them. I added 100 of each and made each person related to each of the 100 companies. I restarted to get a fresh snapshot cache, and if i fetch a person, change the person's name and resave, I get the single query to fetch the EO and a single query to perform the update and no fetches against Company. Chuck is suggesting to me in AIM that maybe Alan meant that if you add or update the flattened to many relationship, it will fire a fault, which is definitely true. But that would be the same if it was just a one-to-many, or a non-flattened relationship. I'm wondering if maybe Alan's referring to some behavior in 5.2 where maybe his concern is true but maybe has since been fixed? No, I meant an insert or update that didn't modify the relationship. It sounds like your test shows my recollection to be wrong with recent WO versions. I'm pretty sure it was true at some point in the past though. Alan ms ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/award% 40apple.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Relationship across model boundaries failing
On May 30, 2008, at 4:14 PM, Alan Ward wrote: On May 30, 2008, at 3:43 PM, Mike Schrag wrote: I'm sure Chuck will correct me if I'm wrong but my recollection is that a flattened to-many will always trip on an insert or update. Hmm. What you mean by trip on? Pretty sure Alan is saying that updating or inserting an EO with a flattened to-many fires the fault of the to-many. This would be a really bad bug if it's true. Writing a test case now ... This appears to be OK for the test I'm doing in 5.3 with Wonder. Maybe this was a bug in an older version of WO/EOF or maybe Wonder fixes this and I just never knew? I have Person and Company and a many-to-many join between them. I added 100 of each and made each person related to each of the 100 companies. I restarted to get a fresh snapshot cache, and if i fetch a person, change the person's name and resave, I get the single query to fetch the EO and a single query to perform the update and no fetches against Company. Chuck is suggesting to me in AIM that maybe Alan meant that if you add or update the flattened to many relationship, it will fire a fault, which is definitely true. But that would be the same if it was just a one-to-many, or a non-flattened relationship. I'm wondering if maybe Alan's referring to some behavior in 5.2 where maybe his concern is true but maybe has since been fixed? No, I meant an insert or update that didn't modify the relationship. It sounds like your test shows my recollection to be wrong with recent WO versions. I'm pretty sure it was true at some point in the past though. Hang on a minute what was flattened in your model? Alan Alan ms ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/award% 40apple.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/award% 40apple.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Relationship across model boundaries failing
OK, so it sounds like the update is fine but how many SQL statements occur when you try to insert a new Person? Alan On May 30, 2008, at 4:28 PM, Mike Schrag wrote: No, I meant an insert or update that didn't modify the relationship. It sounds like your test shows my recollection to be wrong with recent WO versions. I'm pretty sure it was true at some point in the past though. Hang on a minute what was flattened in your model? Company id name people (flattened) Person id name companies (flattened) (CompanyPerson) companyID personID ms ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/award% 40apple.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Relationship across model boundaries failing
On May 30, 2008, at 3:14 PM, Alan Ward wrote: On May 30, 2008, at 3:43 PM, Mike Schrag wrote: I'm sure Chuck will correct me if I'm wrong but my recollection is that a flattened to-many will always trip on an insert or update. Hmm. What you mean by trip on? Pretty sure Alan is saying that updating or inserting an EO with a flattened to-many fires the fault of the to-many. This would be a really bad bug if it's true. Writing a test case now ... This appears to be OK for the test I'm doing in 5.3 with Wonder. Maybe this was a bug in an older version of WO/EOF or maybe Wonder fixes this and I just never knew? I have Person and Company and a many-to-many join between them. I added 100 of each and made each person related to each of the 100 companies. I restarted to get a fresh snapshot cache, and if i fetch a person, change the person's name and resave, I get the single query to fetch the EO and a single query to perform the update and no fetches against Company. Chuck is suggesting to me in AIM that maybe Alan meant that if you add or update the flattened to many relationship, it will fire a fault, which is definitely true. But that would be the same if it was just a one-to-many, or a non-flattened relationship. I'm wondering if maybe Alan's referring to some behavior in 5.2 where maybe his concern is true but maybe has since been fixed? No, I meant an insert or update that didn't modify the relationship. It sounds like your test shows my recollection to be wrong with recent WO versions. I'm pretty sure it was true at some point in the past though. I don't recall modifying an EO attribute ever firing relationship faults. Mind you, my memory is sometimes selective. Chuck -- Practical WebObjects - for developers who want to increase their overall knowledge of WebObjects or who are trying to solve specific problems. http://www.global-village.net/products/practical_webobjects ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Relationship across model boundaries failing
OK, so it sounds like the update is fine but how many SQL statements occur when you try to insert a new Person? I would expect an insert to fire the faults in this case, but that should be the same for a many-to-many with a join entity as long as you are calling addObjectToBothSideBlah on both person and company of the join (which you should be to keep them consistent). As it turns out i accidentally deleted my ManyToMany test-case app just now and I have to recreate it. But I definitely expect it to fire the faults here. ms ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Relationship across model boundaries failing
On May 30, 2008, at 3:35 PM, Alan Ward wrote: OK, so it sounds like the update is fine but how many SQL statements occur when you try to insert a new Person? Should be the same, flattened or not flattened: 1. Fetch the Person 2. Fetch the PK for each company to create an array of company faults* 3. Fetch the new PK 4. Write the new Person 5. Write the new join table row * it would be good if this could be eliminated Pierre? Hello? Feeling up to a challenge? :-P Chuck On May 30, 2008, at 4:28 PM, Mike Schrag wrote: No, I meant an insert or update that didn't modify the relationship. It sounds like your test shows my recollection to be wrong with recent WO versions. I'm pretty sure it was true at some point in the past though. Hang on a minute what was flattened in your model? Company id name people (flattened) Person id name companies (flattened) (CompanyPerson) companyID personID ms ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/award%40apple.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/chill%40global-village.net This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Practical WebObjects - for developers who want to increase their overall knowledge of WebObjects or who are trying to solve specific problems. http://www.global-village.net/products/practical_webobjects ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Relationship across model boundaries failing
On May 30, 2008, at 4:54 PM, Mike Schrag wrote: OK, so it sounds like the update is fine but how many SQL statements occur when you try to insert a new Person? I would expect an insert to fire the faults in this case, but that should be the same for a many-to-many with a join entity as long as you are calling addObjectToBothSideBlah on both person and company of the join (which you should be to keep them consistent). So, my memory is still not 100% clear on this one but I think we're honing in on why I don't flatten If the relationship is not flattened then I have the option of not using addObjectToBothSides if I know I am doing an insert and then discarding the EO (i.e. I don't care about keeping my object graph consistent right now). It means I can avoid faulting in a whole slew of stuff when I know I don't need it. Alan As it turns out i accidentally deleted my ManyToMany test-case app just now and I have to recreate it. But I definitely expect it to fire the faults here. ms ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/award% 40apple.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Relationship across model boundaries failing
So, my memory is still not 100% clear on this one but I think we're honing in on why I don't flatten If the relationship is not flattened then I have the option of not using addObjectToBothSides if I know I am doing an insert and then discarding the EO (i.e. I don't care about keeping my object graph consistent right now). It means I can avoid faulting in a whole slew of stuff when I know I don't need it. This seems right to me, yeah. That said, my standard approach is that if the relationship is too big to fault, then I don't model it. It's VERY rare that I have the relationship modeled but don't want the graph in sync. This same topic came up in the discussions of automatic inverse relationship updating in Wonder, actually. ms ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Relationship across model boundaries failing
On May 30, 2008, at 4:06 PM, Alan Ward wrote: On May 30, 2008, at 4:54 PM, Mike Schrag wrote: OK, so it sounds like the update is fine but how many SQL statements occur when you try to insert a new Person? I would expect an insert to fire the faults in this case, but that should be the same for a many-to-many with a join entity as long as you are calling addObjectToBothSideBlah on both person and company of the join (which you should be to keep them consistent). So, my memory is still not 100% clear on this one but I think we're honing in on why I don't flatten If the relationship is not flattened then I have the option of not using addObjectToBothSides if I know I am doing an insert and then discarding the EO (i.e. I don't care about keeping my object graph consistent right now). It means I can avoid faulting in a whole slew of stuff when I know I don't need it. Maybe I am confused. If you have a flattened to-many, you can also not use addObjectToBothSides and get the same behavior, I think. I can't think of why it would be different. And I have had my coffee today! I think that flattening just removes the need for you to manually handle the join table. Chuck As it turns out i accidentally deleted my ManyToMany test-case app just now and I have to recreate it. But I definitely expect it to fire the faults here. ms ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/award%40apple.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/chill%40global-village.net This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Practical WebObjects - for developers who want to increase their overall knowledge of WebObjects or who are trying to solve specific problems. http://www.global-village.net/products/practical_webobjects ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Relationship across model boundaries failing
On May 30, 2008, at 5:19 PM, Mike Schrag wrote: So, my memory is still not 100% clear on this one but I think we're honing in on why I don't flatten If the relationship is not flattened then I have the option of not using addObjectToBothSides if I know I am doing an insert and then discarding the EO (i.e. I don't care about keeping my object graph consistent right now). It means I can avoid faulting in a whole slew of stuff when I know I don't need it. This seems right to me, yeah. That said, my standard approach is that if the relationship is too big to fault, then I don't model it. Same here. It's VERY rare that I have the relationship modeled but don't want the graph in sync. We actually do it a lot. If you think about our system there are some apps that spend 99% of their time inserting data (think of when something is sold) and there are others that spend 99% of their time reading that same data (think of when something is invoiced). Those first class of apps are not going to traverse the object graph after the insert and need to be very fast. The other class of apps will fetch and then traverse the object graph and are not anywhere near as performance sensitive. This same topic came up in the discussions of automatic inverse relationship updating in Wonder, actually. You can probably guess how I feel about that ;-) I never model inverse relationships until I need them (and even then I sometimes don't) Alan ms ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/award% 40apple.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Safari timeout
I connect to my WO application using Safari. My WO application is connected to a remote database. So my app runs slow. As a result of this Safari is giving me a timeout error saying that the server is not responding. I had set a preference in Terminal using defaults write com.apple.safari to turn off this timeout. But recently, I started getting this timeout again. I don't know if it was caused by updating my OS X to 10.5.3. Does anybody know how to turn off the timeout error in Safari? I want Safari to wait as long as it takes to get the response. :-) Thanks, Ricardo ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Safari timeout
Direct connect or through Apache? On May 30, 2008, at 5:07 PM, Ricardo Parada wrote: I connect to my WO application using Safari. My WO application is connected to a remote database. So my app runs slow. As a result of this Safari is giving me a timeout error saying that the server is not responding. I had set a preference in Terminal using defaults write com.apple.safari to turn off this timeout. But recently, I started getting this timeout again. I don't know if it was caused by updating my OS X to 10.5.3. Does anybody know how to turn off the timeout error in Safari? I want Safari to wait as long as it takes to get the response. :-) Thanks, Ricardo ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/chill%40global-village.net This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Practical WebObjects - for developers who want to increase their overall knowledge of WebObjects or who are trying to solve specific problems. http://www.global-village.net/products/practical_webobjects ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Relationship across model boundaries failing
It's VERY rare that I have the relationship modeled but don't want the graph in sync. We actually do it a lot. If you think about our system there are some apps that spend 99% of their time inserting data (think of when something is sold) and there are others that spend 99% of their time reading that same data (think of when something is invoiced). Those first class of apps are not going to traverse the object graph after the insert and need to be very fast. The other class of apps will fetch and then traverse the object graph and are not anywhere near as performance sensitive. Now I'm just going to have to go look into fixing this in Wonder. How much effort is expended being scared of inverse faulting (which is a problem that seems like it really shouldn't be all THAT hard to fix with a little elbow grease)? ms ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Relationship across model boundaries failing
Now I'm just going to have to go look into fixing this in Wonder. How much effort is expended being scared of inverse faulting (which is a problem that seems like it really shouldn't be all THAT hard to fix with a little elbow grease)? It will definitely take a little more magic to pull off completely and testing to see what the side-effects will be, but I have a prototype that shows this is pretty straightforward to do. The one catch is that includeObjectsInPropertyWithKey (or whatever that method is) does a containsObject(..) call before adding. To answer that question you have to fault the array. However, it appears to work OK if I just make that assume false if it's not faulted at that point. The downside of that is that willChange is called even though once the array is eventually faulted, it may turn out that it DIDN'T change (because it defers the uniqueness check until the fault actually fires). So basically you get too many willChange calls if you add duplicates to an unfaulted array. This doesn't appear to actually be a problem in the limited testing I did, though. Weekend time ... ms ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wonder bug?
Am I simply doing something wrong, or have I discovered a bug?I have a localized project. In the Application constructor, I set Survey says doing something wrong. You're only setting one of the values that matters. Instead set the property: er.extensions.ERXApplication.DefaultEncoding=UTF-8 ms ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Safari timeout
Direct connect On May 30, 2008, at 5:14 PM, Chuck Hill wrote: Direct connect or through Apache? On May 30, 2008, at 5:07 PM, Ricardo Parada wrote: I connect to my WO application using Safari. My WO application is connected to a remote database. So my app runs slow. As a result of this Safari is giving me a timeout error saying that the server is not responding. I had set a preference in Terminal using defaults write com.apple.safari to turn off this timeout. But recently, I started getting this timeout again. I don't know if it was caused by updating my OS X to 10.5.3. Does anybody know how to turn off the timeout error in Safari? I want Safari to wait as long as it takes to get the response. :-) Thanks, Ricardo ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/chill%40global-village.net This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Practical WebObjects - for developers who want to increase their overall knowledge of WebObjects or who are trying to solve specific problems. http://www.global-village.net/products/practical_webobjects ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Safari timeout
On May 30, 2008, at 2:07 PM, Ricardo Parada wrote: I connect to my WO application using Safari. My WO application is connected to a remote database. So my app runs slow. As a result of this Safari is giving me a timeout error saying that the server is not responding. I had set a preference in Terminal using defaults write com.apple.safari to turn off this timeout. But recently, I started getting this timeout again. I don't know if it was caused by updating my OS X to 10.5.3. Does anybody know how to turn off the timeout error in Safari? I want Safari to wait as long as it takes to get the response. :-) The first Safari beta had a 60-second timeout which was annoying in your situation. At the time, I learned about a Safari defaults database key that could be set to a longer timeout. But subsequent Safari versions increased this 60-second timeout to something much longer, so it was no longer a problem. I can't find that defaults database key in my current defaults database and I can't recall what it was. Is the defaults database key that you used to turn off the timeout no longer in your defaults database? If not, have you tried writing it again? Aloha, Art ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Safari timeout
Well, I did a defaults read com.apple.safari and then searched for timeout and nothing. I also read through all the setting and I can't find anything that seems relevant. I'm currently searching in google. On May 30, 2008, at 9:32 PM, Art Isbell wrote: On May 30, 2008, at 2:07 PM, Ricardo Parada wrote: I connect to my WO application using Safari. My WO application is connected to a remote database. So my app runs slow. As a result of this Safari is giving me a timeout error saying that the server is not responding. I had set a preference in Terminal using defaults write com.apple.safari to turn off this timeout. But recently, I started getting this timeout again. I don't know if it was caused by updating my OS X to 10.5.3. Does anybody know how to turn off the timeout error in Safari? I want Safari to wait as long as it takes to get the response. :-) The first Safari beta had a 60-second timeout which was annoying in your situation. At the time, I learned about a Safari defaults database key that could be set to a longer timeout. But subsequent Safari versions increased this 60-second timeout to something much longer, so it was no longer a problem. I can't find that defaults database key in my current defaults database and I can't recall what it was. Is the defaults database key that you used to turn off the timeout no longer in your defaults database? If not, have you tried writing it again? Aloha, Art ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/rparada %40mac.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
