-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > From: "Walters, Jay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 12:00:41 -0400 > > I don't mean to say it isn't a good idea (improved modularity, distributed > cache, etc) long term, but I can't use Castor unless I can avoid 11 queries > to fetch an invoice and it's 10 line items.
Well, if you have more line items, like 100, then the +1 affect is diminished, so problem gets smaller when your orders get bigger. :-) Joke! Sorry, I couldn't help it. The real issue is that looking for performance gains is a constant. We can always try to make things faster. We have to decide what is acceptable performance for a given release. (I'm currently getting acceptable performance myself, so I may not be one to judge... though once lazy collections are less-likely to deadlock in a multi-threaded environment for me, then I'll have even better performance.) > In response to Thomas, I believe I have tried a somewhat recent CVS snapshot > and it continues to have this problem. I sent an email to the list about > configurations some time ago fearing that perhaps it was me, not Castor, but > after looking into the code it was obvious it was Castor not me (at least in > the code base I was looking at.) > > I'd love to hear that I am making up this problem and energy can be spent on > making Castor distributed, I just don't believe this is true. > > Cheers > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ned Wolpert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 12:24 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [castor-dev] Strategy Proposal (repost - was: Castor JDO > Stat us) > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > Alright, alright... I'll skip the pluggable lock engine. If I'm the > only one who wants it, then it doesn't make sense. I'm still going to > work on the object removal from the cache, and make sure the lock > engine is involved in that process. (Just remember folks, its not > hard to make the Lock Engine pluggable... just create a factory that > returns a LockEngine implementation, and read the name of the > implementation from the properties file) > > > > From: "Walters, Jay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 15:43:48 -0400 > > > > I would definitely go for adequate performance (master/detail without n+1 > > queries) before distributed cache or pluggable lock engine if I have any > > vote. > > - -- > > 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: Public key at http://www.keyserver.net > > iD8DBQE80IT5iysnOdCML0URAjdsAJ9uFWPfBxEHsPzPM6Rpx4aRydPFGgCfSLbI > q8s/nbxjoqTjHEbKsvO8oac= > =agoA > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing, send mail to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of: > unsubscribe castor-dev > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing, send mail to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of: > unsubscribe castor-dev - -- 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: Public key at http://www.keyserver.net iD8DBQE80WtWiysnOdCML0URArpxAJ9fsV58asyTBsf1whOcJad2UntMHwCdHsOR h/FhMK/7q5V1BoHyjvjTS28= =SXOr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ----------------------------------------------------------- If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of: unsubscribe castor-dev
