Cancel that. It looks like Pinaki fixed this problem in trunk yesterday. Thanks, Rick
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Rick Curtis <curti...@gmail.com> wrote: > Jim - > > Sorry this one fell off my radar... I'll try to get to it today. > > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 7:09 AM, Jim Talbut <jtal...@spudsoft.co.uk>wrote: > >> On 12/09/2012 02:37, Pinaki Poddar wrote: >> >>> OpenJPA audit allows the user to choose how the audit records are >>> treated. It >>> does not make any decision to store the audited record to be stored in >>> the >>> same database. But that is entirely possible because the audit record >>> carries the states of the persistent object when it entered the >>> persistent >>> context and when it is ready to be committed. However, OpenJPA audit >>> allow >>> the audit record be stored in an entoirely different database or schema >>> as >>> well. >>> >> I'm not sure what message Pinaki is replying to, but I would urge caution >> when using the OpenJPA audit at the moment: >> >> https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/OPENJPA-2253<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OPENJPA-2253> >> >> This causes a memory leak of every auditable object, which will >> eventually kill any process. >> We've had to remove all @Auditable annotations for the time being. >> >> Jim >> >> >> > > > -- > *Rick Curtis* > > -- *Rick Curtis*
