db-ojb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mahler Thomas <thomas.mah...@itellium.com>
Subject RE: I'm disturbed...
Date Tue, 01 Apr 2003 16:16:16 GMT
Hi David,

> 
> Yes, this is a repost.  I posted this comment (and submitted 
> a bug (152, I
> think)) in the middle of last week.  It seems rather serious 
> to me.  The
> disturbing part is there has been no reply at all to a 
> problem where data
> is NOT stored (when it should be, I think).  I'm very familiar with
> open-source and the volunteer nature of open-source projects, so I
> certainly don't expect "12 hour turn around on bug fixes" or anything.
> But,  when you're in the RC stage of a project, and someone 
> identifies the
> explicts of a bug and asks for help with a tactical direction 
> to fix it, I
> think *some* response is warranted...

*SORRY* I spend last weekend with assembling the rc2 release...
I'll hope to work on your issue this week.

thanks for your patience,
Thomas
 
> Thanks
> David
> 
> 
> 
> |---------+--------------------------->
> |         |           David.Corbin@equ|
> |         |           ifax.com        |
> |         |                           |
> |         |           03/26/2003 04:23|
> |         |           PM              |
> |         |           Please respond  |
> |         |           to "OJB         |
> |         |           Developers List"|
> |         |                           |
> |---------+--------------------------->
>   
> >-------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------------|
>   |                                                           
>                                                               
>                          |
>   |        To:      "OJB Users List" <ojb-user@db.apache.org> 
>                                                               
>                          |
>   |        cc:      ojb-dev@db.apache.org                     
>                                                               
>                          |
>   |        Subject: Re: Non-Decomposed collections, without 
> implicit locking                                              
>                            |
>   |                                                           
>                                                               
>                          |
>   
> >-------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------------|
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please consider this snippet from the ObjectEnvelope#getMap (Revision
> 1.17).
> 
>    if (items != null)
>             {
>                 // items might be a Collection or an array.
>                 if (items instanceof Collection)            // [A]
>                 {
>                     /*
>                      * if items are a collectionproxy, and 
> it's not already
> loaded, don't register it.
>                      */
>                     if (!( items instanceof CollectionProxy) ||
> ( (CollectionProxy) items).isLoaded())  //[B]
>                     {
>                             continue;
>                     }
>                     /**
>                      * MBAIRD
>                      * size isn't the safest thing to use as 
> the dirty bit.
> This will
>                      * need to be fixed.
>                      */
>                     Object dirtyMark = new 
> Integer(((Collection)items).size
> ());
>                     fieldValues.put(collectionDescriptor, dirtyMark);
>                 }
>                 else  // items instanceof Object[]
>                 {
>                     Object dirtyMark = new Integer(items.hashCode());
>                     fieldValues.put(collectionDescriptor, dirtyMark);
>                 }
> 
> 
> In Revision 1.17 has introduced a bug.  The CVS metadata says 
> this is in
> response to BUG OJB131.  I think addiition of line [A} is 
> perfectly proper.
> However, the meaning of the condition on line [B] has been totally
> reversed. (Honest! I did a truth table).  The consequences 
> are very bad for
> users of Non-Decomposed Collections (that's where we have problems ---
> might be problem in other Collections).
> 
> Additionally, the comment about using size as the dirty bit 
> is extremely
> frightening to me, as that indicates a measurable quantity of 
> changes to a
> collection just won't be persisted.
> 
> I have a proposal to change the dirty-bit part of the code, 
> but it involves
> adding another method to the ManageableCollection interface.  
> Essentially,
> make it the responsibility of the collection to provide a digest (or
> something similar) that can be used as a dirt bit.  I'll be 
> glad to right
> it if you think that's an OK plan.  If not, the only solution 
> I can see is
> to iterate over the list, building maps of each individual 
> object, and then
> making sure this collection of maps implements equals correctly.
> 
> As we're weeks away from our deadline, anything I can do to get this
> working "correctly", let me know.
> 
> David
> 
> 
> 
> |---------+--------------------------->
> |         |           David.Corbin@equ|
> |         |           ifax.com        |
> |         |                           |
> |         |           03/26/2003 10:39|
> |         |           AM              |
> |         |           Please respond  |
> |         |           to "OJB Users   |
> |         |           List"           |
> |         |                           |
> |---------+--------------------------->
>   >
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------|
> 
>   |
> |
>   |        To:      ojb-user@db.apache.org
> |
>   |        cc:
> |
>   |        Subject: Non-Decomposed collections, without 
> implicit locking
> |
>   |
> |
>   >
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------|
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We've been using ND collections, and without realizing it, we 
> had implicity
> locking turned out.
> 
> It worked great in 0.9.9.
> 
> However, when we switched turned off implicit locking, and 
> switched to rc1,
> objects in the ND collection are not persisted.
> 
> Experimentation reveals this doesn't work in 0.9.9 w/o 
> implicit locking,
> and doesn't work in rc1 with or without implicity locking.
> 
> I've not yet debugged into OJB to see what it is doing, but 
> I'm planning on
> it.
> 
> Should this work still?  Is anyone else having problems in this area?
> 
> David
> 
> 
> This message contains information from Equifax Inc. which may be
> confidential and privileged.  If you are not an intended 
> recipient, please
> refrain from any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this
> information and note that such actions are prohibited.  If you have
> received this transmission in error, please notify by e-mail
> postmaster@equifax.com.
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-user-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-user-help@db.apache.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
> 
> 


Mime
View raw message