On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 8:18 PM, KiKi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, > > I know this discussion is quite old, but I was wondering if you could > elaborate about why storing a scope in a static member is a bad idea.
Basically - none (or almost none) of the classes involved in making AR work (Session, Scope etc) are thread safe. If they are used from more than one thread simultaneously then their behavior is undefined. (and almost certainly wrong/broken/unsafe - e.g. transaction semantics cannot be guaranteed). In this scenario - I _think_ I would introduce a service layer (with a static facade or gateway) which ensured that all DB related requests were handled by one thread and managed serialising calls from multiple threads. (The details of this would obviously totally depend on the exact details of whats going on.) j. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Castle Project Users" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/castle-project-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
