On Jul 20, 2007, at 11:42 AM, Patrick Linskey wrote:
So, I'm looking for answers to the following questions in particular:
1. what should we do about { Java 5, no javaagent, field access }?
Should we support this configuration, including the corresponding
extra overhead, or should we require either property access or a
javaagent specified in these configurations?
I think we should do EAGER fetching of fields just like the other implementations have to do.
2. what should we do about { Java 5, no javaagent, property access,
flushed | cleared instances }? There is a much lower impact to doing
the dirty tracking in these configurations, since the scope is
narrower. However, we might also be able to just not allow flush or
clear or multiple sequential transactions if the persistence context
has references to unenhanced, unredefined user-created instances.
I think that no other implementation will have much of a better solution. So I don't see that we should try to exclude user options or a possible solution just because it's a poor performer.
Craig Craig Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
