On 7/20/07, Allen Gilliland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
1. having JPA complain about using an object after it is removed seems a bit ridiculous. There are very valid reasons to do this, such as the example below. If you really can't work around this then we should plan to change the various removeXXX() methods to return a safe copy of the deleted object that can continue to be used.
JPA did not complain, but it did set fields of the object to null and the result was an NPE in the invalidate method. I think its debatable whether an object should continue to be valid after it is removed/deleted/whatever.
2. moving the invalidation call before the removal is technically incorrect because then if there is an error during the removal you've mistakenly invalidated the template. while this isn't a huge problem in this particular situation it's still not a proper solution and i am guessing that there is somewhere else in the code where doing the same thing could cause more problems.
Yes. I think it's pretty safe to say that the JPA code needs more testing. - Dave
