Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jackrabbit-users-archive@locus.apache.org Received: (qmail 89097 invoked from network); 23 Sep 2008 12:51:31 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 23 Sep 2008 12:51:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 65226 invoked by uid 500); 23 Sep 2008 12:51:28 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-jackrabbit-users-archive@jackrabbit.apache.org Received: (qmail 64751 invoked by uid 500); 23 Sep 2008 12:51:28 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@jackrabbit.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: users@jackrabbit.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list users@jackrabbit.apache.org Received: (qmail 64740 invoked by uid 99); 23 Sep 2008 12:51:27 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 23 Sep 2008 05:51:27 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.6 required=10.0 tests=DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,WHOIS_MYPRIVREG X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of lists@nabble.com designates 216.139.236.158 as permitted sender) Received: from [216.139.236.158] (HELO kuber.nabble.com) (216.139.236.158) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 23 Sep 2008 12:50:26 +0000 Received: from isper.nabble.com ([192.168.236.156]) by kuber.nabble.com with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Ki7M2-0004KN-Qe for users@jackrabbit.apache.org; Tue, 23 Sep 2008 05:50:58 -0700 Message-ID: <19627001.post@talk.nabble.com> Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 05:50:58 -0700 (PDT) From: kenclark To: users@jackrabbit.apache.org Subject: Re: Problem with node.checkin() in same transaction node was created In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Nabble-From: kenclark@snet.net References: <19601525.post@talk.nabble.com> <19608659.post@talk.nabble.com> <48D7AAA0.3050807@gmx.de> <19611941.post@talk.nabble.com> <19616042.post@talk.nabble.com> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Well, two things: 1) The heuristic exception only occurred when I had the checkin() call in the code. If I took it out, I did not get the initial version, but everything worked fine (no heuristic exception) 2) I did convert to an OraclePersistenceManager, and now the checkin() works fine -- no heuristic exception and the end result is as I expect. I do have various other new issues that have come up after this conversion that I have to track down, but I am (thankfully) past the heuristic exception problem. Thanks for your assistance. ken Alexander Klimetschek wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 10:40 PM, kenclark wrote: >> >> From the first link (http://markmail.org/message/2alwjclh6kecpbdn), there >> is >> this statement: >> >> "When you first create a node that is versionable and set properties on >> it, >> you call save on the node. Then the base version of the node has that >> property value. " >> >> However, this is not what I see from the root version. The root version >> does have a jcr:frozenNode child, but that child does not have the >> property >> on it that I set on the versioned Node. >> >> After the root version, the property does show up on the frozenNode >> child. >> >> Also, this conflicts with (if I understand them correctly) what Brett and >> Julian are saying about the root version, which is really just a starting >> point. >> >> Thus, there really is no "first version" created upon save of the >> mix:versionable node, at least if what is meant by first version is the >> initial copy of the node. There has to be a checkin(). Or am I still >> being >> dense? > > Sorry, the mail link was actually not a complete description ;-) It's > true that there has to be a checkin(), so your code is correct. > > Regarding the exception you get: it is interesting to see that there > is no exception from jackrabbit or any jackrabbit class in the > stacktrace. Maybe you omitted the bottom part of the stacktrace? AFAIK > the xml pm, as it does no transactioning at all, could also never > throw an exception if something fails during a transaction. In other > words, it would not rollback the transaction if a file system write > access or similar occurred. So I guess the exception you get > (javax.transaction.HeuristicMixedException, which sounds weird, but I > am not an expert in JTA) might have a different cause. > > Regards, > Alex > > -- > Alexander Klimetschek > alexander.klimetschek@day.com > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Problem-with-node.checkin%28%29-in-same-transaction-node-was-created-tp19601525p19627001.html Sent from the Jackrabbit - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.