Hello, I think there is another problem concerning this issue. Using an Oracle database (9i) I get this error when updating a cmr- field:
(...) Caused by: org.tranql.ql.QueryException: Error executing statement: UPDATE konto SET erzeugt = CASE WHEN ? THEN ? ELSE erzeugt END, bankname = CASE WHEN ? THEN ? ELSE bankname END, bankleitzahl = CASE WHEN ? THEN ? ELSE bankleitzahl END, kontonummer = CASE WHEN ? THEN ? ELSE kontonummer END, kontostand = CASE WHEN ? THEN ? ELSE kontostand END, fk_person = CASE WHEN ? THEN ? ELSE fk_person END WHERE guid = ? (...) Caused by: java.sql.SQLException: ORA-00920: invalid relational operator This not the case when using MySQL. regards Michael -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Gianny Damour [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 26. Januar 2006 13:16 An: [email protected] Betreff: Re: Geronimo CMP update statements Hi Dan, At the beginning, I was not seeing this as an issue. Based on your remark that triggers are wrongly fired, I now see this as an issue that needs to be fixed. Could you please raise a JIRA for this problem? Thanks, Gianny Daniel John Debrunner wrote: >At ApacheConUS 2005 I talked with Matt Hogstrom about the SQL UPDATE >statements Geronimo was issuing against Derby for DayTrader. > >A single UPDATE statement is generated for a table that updates all >columns using a CASE statement to ensure un-modified columns are not >changed, or in reality changed to the same value. An example is >described in GERONIMO-1080, the syntax may be a little different for Derby. > >http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1080 > >I see two issues with this approach, one is that for Derby this is >inefficient, and two, and probably more important, all SQL update >triggers will fire due to this modification of all columns. Thus if an >application defines a trigger on update of the address column of a >customer table, then when using Geronimo this trigger will fire, even if >the CMP application is only updating the customer's balance. This just >seems the wrong semantics to me. > >Matt had said this was a known issue, and that it was going to be fixed. >The comments in GERONIMO-1080 seem to indicate that this may not be seen >as an issue, though those comments are dated before ApacheCon. > >I searched Jira and couldn't see any bug for changing this, are there >any plans to address this? > >Thanks, >Dan. > > > > >
