Search Mailing List Archives
[protege-discussion] Help creating a server project
tredmond at stanford.edu
Thu Mar 1 11:20:21 PST 2012
On 02/28/2012 01:32 PM, Barrett, Michael wrote:
> Thank you very much for your reply, Timothy. I will investigate making the changes suggested with our dba.
It occurred to me later that we could just treat the symptoms and ignore
the cause. If you set your transaction isolation level to read
committed it is possible that your problem would go away. You can do
this by adding the jvm argument:
> However, I don't see how this could be the problem. I am able to edit the ontology if I use the unix client and open the project with the "open recent" button. Using the same client, I have a problem if I try to edit after opening the project via "open other / server"
This is a bit hard to understand. I just checked and both cases use
REPEATABLE_READ transaction level by default. I don't have your full
stack trace but I am guessing that the exception occurs when you make a
change to the ontology.
> I'm using the same database in both cases, changes I make when I open via the "open recent" method are visible when I open by the "open other / server" method.
> - Mike
> Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 14:33:26 -0800
> From: Timothy Redmond<tredmond at stanford.edu>
> To: protege-discussion at lists.stanford.edu
> Subject: Re: [protege-discussion] Help creating a server project
> stored in a database
> Message-ID:<4F4C04B6.8030803 at stanford.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed"
> Sorry for the late reply.
>> What am I doing wrong?
> I suspect that the answer is nothing. Your exception:
>> Amongst the java output when I attempt to create a new class is the
>> at java.awt.EventDispatchThread.run(Unknown Source)
>> Caused by: java.sql.SQLException: Binary logging not possible.
>> Message: Transaction level 'READ-COMMITTED' in InnoDB is not safe for
>> binlog mode 'STATEMENT'
> is a database error that I have never seen before. It is not clear how
> it can be connected to a misconfiguration of Protege. It could be a
> Protege bug but I am guessing it is connected to the database and its
> I did a search on google and found some immediate hits. One was a mysql
> bug  but this message  was also interesting indicating a
> configuration of my.cnf.
>  http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=40360
>  http://help.hannonhill.com/discussions/installation/56-database-error-on-upgrade-to-673
> protege-discussion mailing list
> protege-discussion at lists.stanford.edu
> Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the protege-discussion