Comprende Thanks
-----Original Message----- From: David E Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 2:35 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: findListIteratorByCondition Error Here's a hint from my last email: "Most entity engine operations get wrapped in a transaction if there is not one in place, but it can't do that with the EntityListIterator calls because the transaction needs to stay open until the ELI and the ResultSet associated with it is closed" Let me know if you need more. -David On Mar 20, 2008, at 2:42 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > David > > Thanks a load for the explanation. My education continues! > > I have one further question then though. In this particular case, a > service > is running which reads a processes an EntityListIterator. Should I > have a > begin/commit around just the creation of the ELI or should I have > one around > both the creation and the getNext() as well? In this case, there is a > getNext(), some getRelated(), some computations, and then repeat. > This will > be a very busy server. > > Skip > > -----Original Message----- > From: David E Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 8:35 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: findListIteratorByCondition Error > > > > Skip, > > Transactions are just as important for reading as they are for > writing. In fact most of transaction isolation theory is concerned > with how reads will be affected by writes. > > In OFBiz all major operations are wrapped in a transaction by default, > even rendering of screens for outgoing information (typically in a > separate transaction than the events processing incoming data). Most > entity engine operations get wrapped in a transaction if there is not > one in place, but it can't do that with the EntityListIterator calls > because the transaction needs to stay open until the ELI and the > ResultSet associated with it is closed. > > In a busy server environment you'll probably run into database errors > related to this, but it depends on your traffic and the database you > use. > > But yes, this IS important and was added because production errors > became common before this was added. > > -David > > > On Mar 18, 2008, at 8:48 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> Jacopo >> >> I guess my question should be rephrased. >> >> "Why does the author think that all findListIteratorByCondition() >> calls >> should be surrounded with a transaction, particularly in this case >> where it >> is read-only." >> >> I just want to make sure I am not missing something. I am quite >> happy to >> comment out the exception. In this particular case, 150gigs of log >> file >> were created in one service call to compute stock needs with real >> live data >> from a big company. I am trying to debug this code and need the >> regular >> debug output to be sure things are going as I expect. >> >> If I really need the begin/end, I am happy to do that, I just wanted >> to know >> why. >> >> Skip >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jacopo Cappellato [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 7:13 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: findListIteratorByCondition Error >> >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>> More on this error. Here is the code in GenericDelegator which >>> writes the >>> error to the log. >>> >>> //throwing an exception is a little harsh for now, just >> display >>> a really big error message since we want to get all of these >>> fixed... >>> Exception newE = new Exception("Stack Trace"); >>> Debug.logError(newE, "ERROR: Cannot do a find that >>> returns an >>> EntityListIterator with no transaction in place. Wrap this call in a >>> transaction.", module); >>> >>> >>> As the author desired, it is a REALLY big error. I was writing >>> stdout to >> a >>> file which almost filled up my hard disk with these errors. >>> >>> Could the author comment on why it is important to do this: >>> >>> TransactionUtil.begin(); >>> Map inventory = >>> dispatcher.runSync("getInventoryAvailableByFacility", >>> UtilMisc.toMap("productId", productId, "facilityId", facilityId)); >>> TransactionUtil.commit(); >>> >>> I.E. put the begin/commit around the runSync call other than just >>> to avoid >>> filling up your hard disk? >>> >> >> I'd suggest to avoid redirecting stdout to a file. >> >> Jacopo >> >>> Skip >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> No virus found in this outgoing message. >>> Checked by AVG. >>> Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.21.7/1331 - Release Date: >>> 3/16/2008 >>> 10:34 AM >> >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG. >> Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.21.7/1331 - Release Date: >> 3/16/2008 >> 10:34 AM >> >> No virus found in this outgoing message. >> Checked by AVG. >> Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.21.7/1331 - Release Date: >> 3/16/2008 >> 10:34 AM >> > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG. > Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.21.7/1333 - Release Date: > 3/18/2008 > 8:10 AM > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG. > Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.21.7/1333 - Release Date: > 3/18/2008 > 8:10 AM > No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.21.7/1333 - Release Date: 3/18/2008 8:10 AM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.21.7/1333 - Release Date: 3/18/2008 8:10 AM
