-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Ok, this is quite interesting... Maybe there is something here...
Yes, if we are doing a delete, when the JMS message comes in, we simply call a delete. That's easy enough. When the object is new or modified, call the db.load(). However, I guess my first question is why doesn't this load from the cache like a OQLQuery call would do? When the db.load() call is made, does the resulting object get cached? Maybe I've misunderstood the relationship between db.load() and db.getQuery()... can you go into more detail here? (Specifically, I've turned off cache on certain objects since I wanted the latest 'version' of the objects, even when I knew I needed to reload the objects if they were cached.) On 28-Sep-2001 Tim Fox wrote: > As you mention, I don't think you can explicitly remove an object from > Castor's cache, but surely you can get the same > effect by calling db.remove(object) ?? If the object is already deleted in > the underlying db, then it will silently "not delete" the row, and Castor > should remove it from the cache. > If your JMS message specifies an update or a new, then you call db.load(...) > instead to reload/load the objects state. > I reckon you could stick a JMS (or whatever) clustering layer on top of > Castor without having to add a new "unload" method. > Or am I missing something?? (Always quite possible :) ) > Virtually, Ned Wolpert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> D08C2F45: 28E7 56CB 58AC C622 5A51 3C42 8B2B 2739 D08C 2F45 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE7tK1aiysnOdCML0URApUOAJ9814oeHbFwrzUNBjl0RxaY9dOo9gCfemIV u5tutPA7BUHKEu9f1xtSY6Y= =1gAh -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ----------------------------------------------------------- If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of: unsubscribe castor-dev
