ode-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Maciej Szefler" <...@intalio.com>
Subject Re: Upgrade from Ode 1.0 to 1.1
Date Tue, 11 Dec 2007 16:06:55 GMT
Rene,

thanks, i think I just assumed that the postgres would have the same DDL as
derby. I'd like to check in your version, but it appears that you did not
attach it.

-mbs

On 12/11/07, René Bos <r.bos@pagelink.nl> wrote:
>
> Hello!
>
> I now have Ode 1.1 running in PostgreSQL. I first tried to migrate 1.0 to
> 1.1, and fixed the database schema and all. But than I decided not to do a
> migration but to re-execute all processes into Ode 1.1. This all worked
> out! The only difference I can remember is in ode_message_route the change
> from index to route_index. And somewhere a column made larger.
>
> I have attached the DDL, maybe you can use post it somewhere on the site
> or in the distro.
>
> I saw something strange in the SVN repro. In
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ode/trunk/dao-hibernate-db/src/main/sql/simplesched-postgre.sql?view=markup
> and
>
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ode/trunk/dao-hibernate-db/src/main/sql/simplesched-postgres.sql?view=markup
> there is no PostgreSQL queries but for derby. For other schemas this is
> also the case.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Rene
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: matthieu.riou@gmail.com [mailto:matthieu.riou@gmail.com] On Behalf
> Of Matthieu Riou
> Sent: maandag 10 december 2007 16:40
> To: user@ode.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Upgrade from Ode 1.0 to 1.1
>
> On Dec 10, 2007 12:01 AM, René Bos <r.bos@pagelink.nl> wrote:
>
> > Hello!
> >
> > First I want to thank you for your answer (right on time, after
> 2.5months? ;)). At the moment I have the time (and need) to do the upgrade
> from
> > Ode 1.0 to 1.1. Because I also want to use a PostgreSQL database with
> Ode
> > I did some research. I found out from the database dump that I don't
> have
> > anything in the quartz tables (Except from the QRTZ_LOCKS one). I think
> this
> > is because I don't use scheduled activities like wait. Now is my
> question,
> > should it be possible in this situation to use the same database in Ode
> > 1.1 as with Ode 1.0?
> >
>
> There have been some column additions/removal between 1.0 and 1.1 but I
> don't think there's been many of them. If you diff your schema with the
> one
> we generate in ODE 1.1 and post it here we can probably tell you how to
> handle all the differences.
>
> Also do you want to migrate running instances or just the history with
> process definitions? I believe we changed the serialized representations
> of
> instances a bit so migrating running instances could be challenging. We're
> currently implementing a fix for this so that migration from 1.1 to 1.2will
> be easier.
>
> Cheers,
> Matthieu
>
>
> >
> > Rene
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Alex Boisvert [mailto:boisvert@intalio.com]
> > Sent: woensdag 26 september 2007 16:17
> > To: user@ode.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Upgrade from Ode 1.0 to 1.1
> >
> > On 9/25/07, René Bos <r.bos@pagelink.nl> wrote:
> > >
> > > I have Ode 1.0 running in production for about a month now, and its
> > doing
> > > very good! But I want to upgrade to Ode 1.1 and I was wondering how to
> > do
> > > that without having to stop all my processes. Normally I can do this,
> > but I
> > > think you guys changed the database structure for the new scheduler,
> > isn't
> > > it? Is there an upgrade script or something?
> >
> >
> > Hi René,
> >
> > There are no upgrade scripts to upgrade from Ode 1.0 to 1.1 although we
> > can
> > definitely help.   Beyond schema changes, I believe there are
> differences
> > between serialized objects (Quartz vs SimpleScheduler objects) so I
> think
> > there would be some coding involved.  At Intalio we were fortunate
> enough
> > that customers have either migrated early to the SimpleScheduler, or
> used
> > co-existing instances of Ode until all older processes completed and the
> > data archived.   Depending on your environment, running coexisting Ode
> > instances might be a simpler bet.   And I can assure you that moving
> > forward, we'll have migration scripts from 1.1 onwards.
> >
> > cheers,
> > alex
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message