[xmlblaster-devel] [Fwd: Re: [xmlblaster] Ldbc]

[Michele Laghi <laghi at swissinfo.org>]

Hi Peter,
I moved this topic to the developer list since it is more appropriate.
I fixed the property parser to allow commas inside subproperties (for 
the mapping). You just need to enclose the whole subpropery with double 
quotes.

Tomorrow I would add a flag "cascadeDelete=no" (yes per default) and 
then we should have it all to be merged into JdbcQueueCommonTable, 
making configuration, documentation fixes and testing simpler to be 
done. (for the same reason we removed a while ago the original JdbcQueue).

Cascade Deleting: I have not looked at it.

Michele



Michele Laghi wrote:
> Hi Peter,
> I have looked at the code and in fact it should be possible to implement 
> all in one single common code by adding two more configuration parameters.
>
> Paring the mapping should be possible after some code modification (the 
> ',' inside a mapping should not break in future)
>
> Before I start however I want to make sure the current code works. I 
> tested the ldbc with postgres and there is one only error in the 
> testsuite. It fails when making the request in peekBySamePriority when 
> 12 entries in the queue and 4 entries expected to be peeked. The statement:
>
> "SELECT * from TEST_ENTRIES where 
> queueName='callback_QueuePluginpeekMsg' and nodeId='xmlBlaster' and 
> prio=(select max(prio) from TEST_ENTRIES where 
> queueName='callback_QueuePluginpeekMsg' AND nodeId='xmlBlaster')  ORDER 
> BY dataId ASC"
>
> with the error
>
> [Nov 18, 2003 10:05:08 PM TRACE LdbcPreparedQuery] Constructor. 
> SQLException: 37000
>
> Any idea about the cryptic 37000 ?
>
>
> About the tests: I think it is not necessary to write new tests: the 
> criteria that the old tests should pass should be sufficient.
>
> Saluti
> Michele

Hmmm strange... Postgres was the only db I was fully confident would
work... I will look into the error... They are not that easy to track
down. Thanks for the test.

As I said I am not sure I am erasing enough from the tables with the
replacement code to overcome no cascading delete in ldbc however that
may not explain the test results. Surely there are other tests that
erase and check.

As for your other suggestion about integrating the code... I have no
problem with this however we should wait for a while and get it stable
and working first.

Regards



--
Michele Laghi
mailto:laghi at swissinfo.org
tel. +46 8 7492952 / mob. +46 70 4103964
http://eclettic.tripod.com
http://www.xmlBlaster.org