Re: SDataSet.removeRecord(SRecordInstance rinst)

Of course, cannot remove SRecordInstant.dirty because of deprecated instances detached from DataSets.  Reverted + comment!

Can we get rid of this, or are you still using it?

Have removed serializatbility of SRecord|FieldMeta, plus comment.

Please update your version and confirm all is OK.

I suspect your Tomcat problem is unrelated.  If you make the SRecordMeta variable a static per the normal patterns then it is hard to see how you could be going wrong.

Anthony



At 01:28 PM 21/02/2009, you wrote:
>Thanks for that.  
>
>I cleaned it up a little.  Removed SRecordInstant.dirty which is now redundant.
>
>removeRecord is now just
>
>    public void removeRecord(SRecordInstance rinst) {
>        rinst.setDirty(false);
>        records.remove(rinst);
>        rinst.destroy();        
>   }
>
>Please check it out and confirm it works for you.
>
>The only reason to move removeRecord is because deleteRecord is on SRecordInstance.  No matter, leave it where it is.  Better because clear that it is data set oriented.
>
>Anthony
>
>
>At 08:49 PM 20/02/2009, you wrote:
>
>>Hello,
>>
>>SDataSet.removeRecord now call instance.setDirty(false), and it works fine.
>>
>>I don't really see why it would be interesting to move removeRecord to 
>>SRecordInstance.
>>It would mean "The record removes himself from the dataSet" instead of
>>"We ask the dataset to remove a record".
>>
>>Anyway I can commit the fix and let you check for where to put removeRecord.
>>
>>Damien
>>
>><mailto:anthony%40berglas.org>[email protected] a écrit :
>>>
>>> Hello Damien,
>>>
>>> The checks "if records obtained from SDataSet.getDirtyRecords are not 
>>> null" should already be there, but please check the checks. Note that 
>>> DataSet.removeFromDirtyList set it to null.
>>>
>>> removeRecord should call instance.setDirty(false) which will remove it 
>>> from the cache and clear the updateListIndex (which should be 
>>> renamed). (Maybe removeRecord should be moved to 
>>> SRecordInstance.rawRemoveRecord, although all the other DataSet only 
>>> methods are on the DataSet. The comment should certainly refer to the 
>>> delete method.)
>>>
>>> Please check this in when done.
>>>
>>> Anthony
>>>
>>> At 11:54 PM 17/02/2009, you wrote:
>>>
>>> >I've just implemented the fix with setting null the removed record in
>>> >dirty list.
>>> >
>>> >The only thing it implies is to check if records obtained from
>>> >SDataSet.getDirtyRecords are not null before working with them.
>>> >
>>> >I also add a test in SDataSet.removeRecord to check consistence between
>>> >dirtyRecordList from SDataset and dirtyRecordsIndex from SRecordInstance.
>>> >
>>> >It seems to work better when encountering this case !
>>> >
>>> >I answer about the serialization in the other thread.
>>> >
>>> ><mailto:anthony%40berglas.org><mailto:anthony%40berglas.org>[email protected] 
>>> <mailto:anthony%40berglas.org> a écrit :
>>> >>
>>> >> Hello Damien,
>>> >>
>>> >> Yes, I think that you have found a bug.
>>> >>
>>> >> It will only arise in practice if you actually call removeRecord.
>>> >> Normal operations such as Flush and Delete do not remove the records
>>> >> from the dirty list, and so will not trigger the bug.
>>> >>
>>> >> For now please just null the entry in dirtyRecords. Do not try to
>>> >> update the updateListIndex references. That is because Flush and
>>> >> Delete just null the entry, and the behavior should be consistent.
>>> >>
>>> >> (If ever you did want to actually dirtyRecords.remove the entry then
>>> >> it should be done consistently everywhere. That is a substantial job,
>>> >> and I think that the benefit, if any, would be minimal.)
>>> >>
>>> >> Please also rename updateListIndex to dirtyRecordsIndex to be
>>> >> consistent. (dirtyRecords used to be called updateList.)
>>> >>
>>> >> But first please also look at the exception that you received when you
>>> >> found the error. It should have been a clear, fail fast message about
>>> >> inconsistent data structures. If not, we may need another test. Also
>>> >> please add a failing test case before fixing the bug.
>>> >>
>>> >> Finally, please do try commenting out "implements Serializable" from
>>> >> SRecordMeta and SFieldMeta. If it does not break your application then
>>> >> we will remove them for good. I was always suspicious about them, and
>>> >> now I am pretty sure they are plain wrong.
>>> >>
>>> >> Thanks,
>>> >>
>>> >> Anthony
>>> >>
>>> >> At 08:27 PM 16/02/2009, you wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> >Hello,
>>> >> >
>>> >> >I just find a bug in the method removeRecord from the SDataSet object.
>>> >> >It seems that each SRecordInstance in the dataset have a 
>>> updateListIndex
>>> >> >attribute. This attribute is used to quickly find the index in the 
>>> dirty
>>> >> >record list from a dataset. When removeRecord is used, the dirty 
>>> record
>>> >> >list shifts all elements from the deleted one to the end of the 
>>> list, so
>>> >> >that the deleted record is removed ! All the record 
>>> updateListIndex from
>>> >> >this point are no longer correct. They bind their old position in the
>>> >> >list, not the new.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >I don't know which way is better to avoid the bug, substract 1 
>>> from all
>>> >> >index that have been shifted or not remove the record but set the 
>>> array
>>> >> >entry to null ... ? Setting to null is quicker but may be the cause of
>>> >> >futur bugs. I could trust the unit test to validate the fix. I think
>>> >> >shifting the updateListIndex is more reliable even if it add more cpu
>>> >> work.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >--
>>> >> >HOSTIN Damien - Equipe R&D
>>> >> >Tel:+33(0)4 63 05 95 40
>>> >> >Société Axège
>>> >> >23 rue Saint Simon
>>> >> >63000 Clermont Ferrand
>>> >> >www.axege.com
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >> Dr Anthony Berglas, 
>>> <mailto:anthony%40berglas.org><mailto:anthony%40berglas.org>[email protected] 
>>> <mailto:anthony%40berglas.org> <mailto:anthony%40berglas.org>
>>> >> Mobile: +61 4 4838 8874
>>> >> Just because it is possible to push twigs along the ground with 
>>> ones nose
>>> >> does not necessarily mean that is the best way to collect firewood.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >--
>>> >HOSTIN Damien - Equipe R&D
>>> >Tel:+33(0)4 63 05 95 40
>>> >Société Axège
>>> >23 rue Saint Simon
>>> >63000 Clermont Ferrand
>>> >www.axege.com
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>> Dr Anthony Berglas, <mailto:anthony%40berglas.org>[email protected] <mailto:anthony%40berglas.org> 
>>> Mobile: +61 4 4838 8874
>>> Just because it is possible to push twigs along the ground with ones nose
>>> does not necessarily mean that is the best way to collect firewood.
>>>
>>> 
>>
>>-- 
>>HOSTIN Damien - Equipe R&D
>>Tel:+33(0)4 63 05 95 40
>>Société Axège
>>23 rue Saint Simon
>>63000 Clermont Ferrand
>>www.axege.com
>>
>>
>
>Dr Anthony Berglas, [email protected]       Mobile: +61 4 4838 8874
>Just because it is possible to push twigs along the ground with ones nose
>does not necessarily mean that is the best way to collect firewood.

Dr Anthony Berglas, [email protected]       Mobile: +61 4 4838 8874
Just because it is possible to push twigs along the ground with ones nose
does not necessarily mean that is the best way to collect firewood.



------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SimpleORM/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SimpleORM/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:[email protected] 
    mailto:[email protected]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [email protected]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/