cayenne-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Gentry, Michael \(Contractor\)" <michael_gen...@fanniemae.com>
Subject RE: Generating primary key locally without extra tables
Date Wed, 21 Jun 2006 13:50:41 GMT
UUID: I don't care about guessable (I'd never give a client -- such as a web browser -- access
to the primary key).  Also, it isn't so much a need as a desire.  I'm perfectly content with
incrementing numbers, but when doing production support, more information could be helpful.
 If the PK contains the create timestamp, the server IP, and the process number, that would
allow me to more easily trouble shoot something (especially finding the log output).  In my
current environment, we have 20 or so instances (processes) of an application split across
multiple servers hitting the same database.  If there is an issue, it is painful to track
down the logs for when a record was created.  If the PK could narrow that down, it would be
helpful.


How are the non-standard (as in not supported by Cayenne) PKs generated?  I had to roll my
own PK generator for Cayenne because our schema (Sybase backend -- which is similar to MS
SQL Server) used a stored procedure which returned a 12-byte array as the PK.  It is certainly
possible to roll your own generator, which might be the best approach.

Thanks,

/dev/mrg


-----Original Message-----
From: oyvindharboe@gmail.com [mailto:oyvindharboe@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Øyvind Harboe
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 9:40 AM
To: cayenne-user@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Generating primary key locally without extra tables


On 6/21/06, Gentry, Michael (Contractor) <michael_gentry@fanniemae.com> wrote:
> Hmm, I can look into the UUID thing a bit more, but at first glance I don't think it
has the information I'd like encoded in it.  But thanks!  :-)

Isn't UUID also guaranteed to be unguessable based upon previous
UUID's and have no structure?

It does sound like you have very different needs if you need some
structure to the number.

>
> As to my comments, I have a feeling that changing the value of an existing primary key
of an object would have bad consequences on the Cayenne object graph (mess Cayenne up).  I've
never tried it, but it just doesn't seem like the right thing to do.
>
> The second thing you mentioned, catching exceptions and trying again, seems very hackish,
which I'm sure you already know.
>
> Is there any reason you can't use the existing server-side PK generation?

It needs to be supported by both the JDBC driver and the Cayenne
adapter, which is not always the case.

>
> /dev/mrg
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: oyvindharboe@gmail.com [mailto:oyvindharboe@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Øyvind Harboe
> Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 9:16 AM
> To: cayenne-user@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Generating primary key locally without extra tables
>
>
> On 6/21/06, Gentry, Michael (Contractor) <michael_gentry@fanniemae.com> wrote:
> > I actually looked into making a PK generator that required no DB access, but when
I looked into it, Java didn't support everything I wanted without resorting to JNI and C code.
 Of course, I was more ambitious in what I was thinking.  I wanted it to be similar to what
I could do in EOF (hundreds of keys/sec).
> >
> > Does anyone here know if Java 1.5 supports obtaining the process ID natively?  I
think that was my stumbling point before.  I was trying to make a key that contained server
IP, process ID, timestamp, and counter.  Maybe it is time to consider this again.  If I could
produce a unique string all the time like that, it would make a nice PK generator and your
PKs would have some meaning (that is me with my production support hat on).
>
> It sounds like you are looking for something like:
> http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/docs/api/java/util/UUID.html
>
> > As to your questions ...
> >
> > A) My gut feeling tells me that wouldn't be a good idea.
>
> Could you be more specific?
>
> We're replacing a horrid .asp + MS Access application, which
> inevitably leads to some nausea :-)
>
> > B) You could do that, but it seems pretty problematic to me.
>
> More specific?
>
>
> > Maybe some others will have a few good ideas ...
>
> If I can have an MSAccess & Oracle & MS SQL adapter that supports
> server generated keys, then that will also solve my problems. Might be
> a bit quixotic though. :-)
>
> --
> Øyvind Harboe
> http://www.zylin.com
>


-- 
Øyvind Harboe
http://www.zylin.com

Mime
View raw message