db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Oystein.Grov...@Sun.COM (Øystein Grøvlen)
Subject Re: [jira] Commented: (DERBY-230) "Schema already exists" when creating a table
Date Fri, 22 Apr 2005 15:52:33 GMT
>>>>> "DJD" == Daniel John Debrunner <djd@debrunners.com> writes:

    DJD> [As an aside traditionally Cloudscape did not use synchronized *static*
    DJD> methods as there were locking issues related to class loading - this was
    >> From jdk 1.1 days, have those issues been fixed now?]

I am not an expert on this, but Doug Lea says in "Concurrent
Programming in Java":

        The JVM internally obtains and releases the locks for Class
        objects during class loading and intialization.  Unless you
        are writing a special class ClassLoader or holding multiple
        locks during static initialization sequences, these internal
        mechanics cannot interfere with the use of ordinary methods
        and blocks synchronized on Class objects.

    DJD> Within the engine code it would be a StandardException that was being
    DJD> ignored, the engine throughout uses StandardException as its exception
    DJD> model, and converts to JDBC'S SQLException at the interface to the
    DJD> application. The code would catch StandardException and if its message
    DJD> identifier (which will translate to the SQLState in the SQLException)
    DJD> was the expected one it would ignore it, otherwise re-throw the
    DJD> exception. I'll look for an example and post it.
    DJD> I'm still thinking if this is the correct solution for this case, most
    DJD> likely it is.

I found an example of how one catches a StandardException.  I guess in
my case it should be something like this:

ConstantAction csca = new CreateSchemaConstantAction(schemaName, (String) null);
try {    
} catch (StandardException se) {
    if (se.getMessageId().equals(SQLState.LANG_OBJECT_ALREADY_EXISTS)) {
        // Ignore "Schema already exists".  
        // Another thread has probably created it since we checked for it
    } else {
        throw se;

Does this look OK?


View raw message