Werner,
The proxy interface approach looks clean and sound. I think 99% are
using jdk 1.3 and up?
Steve
----- Original Message -----
From: "Werner Guttmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 5:41 PM
Subject: Re: [castor-dev] JDO object creation performance flaw
>
> Stephen,
>
> I am still in the process of readying a first patch for this feature. In
the meantime, I'd like to bounce the following issue with you and everybody
else
> interested. It looks like the only way to go about a solution for this is
via dynamic proxies. This implies that ...
>
> a) support for 1:1 lazy loading will only be available for people using
JDK 1.3 and up.
> b) I'll need to introduce a new requirement to get this working. For any
class that you want to lazy load as part of a simple 1:1 relation, you'll
need to
> have an interface. I checked with other tools like OJB, as it looks like
they have taken the same approach. Which comes as no surprise as dynamic
> proxies depend on interfaces.
>
> FWIW
> Werner
>
> On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 12:48:31 -0400, Stephen Ince wrote:
>
> >
> >No problem about testing lazy-loading 1:1. This would of course help
loading
> >of large about objects.
> >I will work on a performance patch for top-level objects with large
number
> >of dependent children.
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Werner Guttmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 4:47 AM
> >Subject: Re: [castor-dev] JDO object creation performance flaw
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Well, if that's the case .. ;-), what would you think about helping us
> >with testing new code, whether it's a feature such as support for
> >lazy-loading 1:1
> >> relations or support for the transient attribute at the <sql> level.
Right
> >now, I've got a patch posted for the transient support, and I'd be very
> >interested to
> >> get some hands-on comments.
> >>
> >> Interested ?
> >>
> >> Werner
> >>
> >> On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 21:10:17 +0100, Gregory Block wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >On 29 Jun 2004, at 15:18, Stephen Ince wrote:
> >> >> Steve --> I think it is an issue for 1:m relations and not for 1:1
> >> >> relations.
> >> >
> >> >At this point, anything which can be done to offer the capability to
> >> >fragment and delay queries is good; more importantly, if that partial
> >> >loading then uses the cache, anything with 1:1 mappings where the
other
> >> >half of the 1 in question is shared by many should instantly see an
> >> >improvement.
> >> >
> >> >So thumbs up on that lazy-load of 1:1, it's still good to see. :)
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >-----------------------------------------------------------
> >> >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
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >-----------------------------------------------------------
> >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
>
-----------------------------------------------------------
If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing, send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of:
unsubscribe castor-dev
