Ah.. So if you could track what a user was doing with objects across a request... essentially you could async. save them all at the end of the request?
Is that what you are thinking? Mark On Jan 31, 2008 10:25 AM, Jaime Metcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mark, > > Thinking about Hibernate. The key there is that every persisted object is > known to the current session. *If* you could automate opening and closing a > session on every request, along with reattaching your cached objects on > session open, it might be possible to hide all the ugliness around merging, > attaching, etc. Whether CF can handle that kind of workload is another > question. > > Jaime > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf > Of *Mark Mandel > *Sent:* Thursday, 31 January 2008 8:46 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* [CFCDEV] Re: myBean.save() versus myServiceObj.save(myBean) > > Jaime, > > I've had thoughts on this on and off through the years. > > The only thought I've ever had was something like async persistence on a > timer, say every 10 minutes. > > I figured this wouldn't be a good idea as if the sever goes down, you can > lose a fair amount of data. > > That and there is no way of guaranteeing any data you query is valid > (unless it hooks directly into the cache). > > Was this the sort of direction you were talking about.. or something else? > > Mark > > On Jan 31, 2008 9:25 AM, Jaime Metcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > Sticking our heads above the CF parapet for a moment, "neither" is also > > a > > valid answer. Transparent persistence is nice for some use cases. I'm > > not > > aware of any mature frameworks or even best practices for doing this in > > CF, > > but we should leave it on the radar, maybe someone will get inspired. > > > > Jaime Metcher > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Behalf > > > Of Peter Bell > > > Sent: Thursday, 31 January 2008 3:17 AM > > > To: [email protected] > > > Subject: [CFCDEV] Re: myBean.save() versus myServiceObj.save(myBean) > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Alan, > > > > > > Been pretty much beaten to death on cfcdev over the years. Short > > > answer, it > > > isn't right or wrong - more a matter of preference. > > > > > > I prefer syntactically User.save() to UserService.save(User), but > > that's a > > > pure preference Others prefer it the other way round. > > > > > > Provisos: > > > - Don't put SQL in the bean - eithr way the saving should be > > > delegated to a > > > DAO > > > - For user.save() you need to inject a DAO into your transients which > > > requires ColdSpring with singleton=false, a custom factory or > > lightwire. > > > - If you need to support remote method cals, you're going to need a > > > Userservice.save() method. I have one for remote calls ad it just > > delgates > > > to a new bean it creates. Some may prefer just to have the service do > > the > > > save all the time, but again it's down to preferences. > > > > > > Best Wishes, > > > Peter > > > > > > > > > On 1/30/08 12:03 PM, "Alan Livie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > We currently use the service object to save a bean (which uses a > > > > gateway/DAO its composed with to do the work) > > > > > > > > Another developer has suggested the bean should save really be > > > > responsible for saving itself (again using a DAO its composed with). > > > > > > > > This looks like a good one for a discussion! :-) > > > > > > > > Alan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] W: www.compoundtheory.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CFCDev" 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/cfcdev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
